YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#621

Post by throwaway5752 » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #376

corndoge wrote: post #3

> YouTube indicated that examples of the offending content in the video included the line: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” > It also included the quote: “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” Regardless of what you think about YouTube's misinformation policy, I don't think this i…

They don't dictate truth and their job is not to spread truth. There job is to make money, and letting the loudest fringe people drive off lucrative sane people is against their best interests. Nobody has a first amendment right to have a WSJ OpEd column or a Youtube account. There are platforms that allow you to say anything as a policy, like 8chan, and they are cesspools because of it. Rand Paul can use one of thos…

To downvoters, I'm curious who should force a platform what content they should be compelled to carry. Government? Should YouTube be compelled to carry anything permitted by law? They don't allow pornography, graphic violence, or hate speech. Should they be forced to carry those? What freedom does YouTube have to decide what sort of platform they have?

Allowing them to suspend people at their discretion is far better than the alternative.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#622

Post by throwaway5752 » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 1:40 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #603

reubens wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote mentioned that store-bought masks don't prevent infection. He didn't say that they work poorly. The recommendations suggest that having any mask is better than having no mask.

Whether there is any difference between those two assertions depends strongly on your implicit cost-benefit outlook. Liberals typically subscribe to a “any measure even one with a small benefit is worth it.” Conservatives usually feel the opposite.

That is false. He is not arguing, "they don't provide enough benefit to justify inconveniencing people". He is saying they are ineffective, which is an intentional sleight of hand argument that focuses not being effective in blocking the virus from being inhaled while ignoring that they are effective at reducing the velocity of airborne particules when exhaled and distance at which the virus can be transmitted to others. Which, on the aggregate, is effective.

It is grossly dishonest and as a surgeon, he knows this. It's filthy, disgusting political strategy that is killing people to try work a wedge issue for '22.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-introduces-leg... is further proof that he is not entering the public debate in good faith and in service of public health. We have not reached herd immunity, and had not at the time he introduced this. As a member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pension as well as Homeland Security and Government Affairs, there is no doubt he had access to to better data on this than the general public.

I would love for him to say "I am a conservative and I'd rather some people die than to even allow the mildest mask laws" so we could have an honest debate. He wants to frame this as an individual freedom question, and wants to deny the deaths/illness that are the consequence because it harms his rhetorical position - or really, his future career in politics. That might raise the idea of an individual's right to not get sick and die as a result of someone else's decisions. We do not allow people to drive intoxicated in the US for this reason, as well as a host of other regulations.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#623

Post by quantumBerry » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

nicetryguy wrote: post #618

quantumBerry wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? I guess she didn't think of my misery every time she gets in her car and drives somewhere unnecessary like a restaurant or gym to enjoy her life. Why would she engage in such risky behavior? Should I report her to CPS for child endangerment every time the child is taken somewhere in a vehicle for enjoyment (such as the park), exposing them to…

It is clear to me that the people closest to you will pay dearly for your immature selfish lack of awareness and consideration for anyone else but yourself on planet earth. You are a time bomb and i pity those caught in the inevitable explosion. Good day sir.

Yet somehow I have managed to live half of a normal lifespan without such an "explosion" and maintain a happy and comfortable family, a clean criminal record, and have never caused anyone else serious harm or property damage.

The difference between you and I is that you believe I am an inconsiderate immature person for disagreeing with you, whereas I merely believe those with different opinions (even you) merely have a different outlook than me. I hope you are able to adjust your outlook to accommodate differing opinions of others without looking down upon them.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#624

Post by thethethethe » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 2:01 AM UTC

Thorentis wrote: post #180

dantheman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube most definitely has the right to determine what they're going to show on their platform. You may not agree with their choices, but it's their right. It is easy and cheap to host videos online that can be easily linked to and viewed by anyone.

Welcome to another installment of "but they're a private company". Who decides what rights private companies have? Do private companies have a right to dump waste into rivers? What about to fire employees because of their race? The rights of private companies are not transcendental - we define them. And if we decide as a society that deleting information from publishing platforms goes against the common good, then we…

> if we decide as a society that deleting information from publishing platforms goes against the common good, then we can do that.

Yeah this sounds nice and all but ultimately someone has to make the rules about what can and cannot be said. Should we never delete any content period? What about child abuse or calls to violence? who gets to define violence? Is telling people that masks don't work a call to violence? Maybe not but you could make the argument.

Ultimately it comes down to who we want to wield this power, and right now it's between corporate interests and the US government. Considering that the ruling party is the one pushing the tech giants into this kind of censorship (pretty evident if you watched the tech hearing last year), I think I'd rather let the corporate interests have the power for now. The funny thing is, me from ten years ago would be outraged by this take. Things have changed pretty fast.

Disclaimer: I work for google opinions are my own

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#625

Post by kube-system » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 2:09 AM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #217

kube-system wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"deliberately" is the key word. Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.

>Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive. How are you supposed to tell which is which without reading minds? This simply moves the argument from "accurate vs concise" to "concise for good reasons vs concise for bad reasons"

Because in the same way we can rely on health sciences to explain how masks work, we can rely on political science to tell us how senate elections work. :)

You certainly don’t win senate elections by telling your constituents that they’re wrong. You start with the preconceived views of your constituents and work your way backwards to an argument.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#626

Post by __blockcipher__ » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 2:19 AM UTC

Valectar wrote: post #587

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just in your quote it stated that the control that cloth mask use was compared to was a population with a high proportion of mask wearing. The study does not compare cloth mask usage to no mask usage, and only says that it is possible that cloth masks are harmful. That was me debunking the “before COVID, masks were known to work” claim of the GP. That was not a study of SARS-2 but rather Influenza. The “masks don’t…

> There is no study showing that masks slow the spread of sars-2 in a community You say that, and yet "At least ten studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... And the website goes on to list each of them, as well as a number of other studies relating to the effectiveness of masking.

Those studies all have fundamental flaws. The basic problem is those are associative studies, which can’t separate the effects of masking from the normal curve of a viral epidemic.

You are right though I should have been much more specific than just “study”.

A question though: if masking is so great, why wouldn’t the health authorities have performed an actual RCT to conclusively prove they work? (We have one RCT for SARS-2 which showed no statistically significant effect on the primary endpoint)

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#627

Post by kube-system » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #185

kube-system wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rand knows this 100%, and I find it pretty fascinating from a creative perspective to watch him speak on these topics. He's a senator and an MD. He is well aware of how infection control works, but he also knows that his ultimate job as a politician is to make arguments that will resonate with his constituents. He knows exactly what landmines to throw into a sentence to make it mean one thing to an expert, but sound…

> he also knows that his ultimate job as a politician is to make arguments that will resonate with his constituents Wider context check, his job as a politician is to serve his constituents by leading , even when it may be difficult. Pandering to the lazy and ignorant in a state of perpetual campaigning is an utter dereliction of duty.

Morally speaking, yes. But functionally speaking, the votes are what ultimately matters. Leadership might be a way to achieve votes, but it isn’t literally required.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#628

Post by hedgehog » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #166

hedgehog wrote: post #77

Even poorly fitted cloth masks or a bandana will do a little bit for source control. That's useful to help contain spread, we just need to push the exponent on infection growth below 1.0. COVID's vicious feature is not that it's extraordinarily dangerous on a per-case basis, it's that it spreads so easily and even in people without symptoms. Clearly it would be better if everyone wore N95 quality masks, and that's th…

That's not scientifically correct. Because the vaccines are not fully sterilizing and there are multiple animal host species the virus will never be eradicated regardless of what we do. It's now endemic. You can't expect people to wear masks indefinitely.

Ending the pandemic is different from eradicating the virus. It'll likely end up being something we manage just as we manage viruses like measles or Ebola. Vaccination and surveillance will slow the sporadic smaller outbreaks and make it feasible to contain them.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#629

Post by __blockcipher__ » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 2:21 AM UTC

edoceo wrote: post #596

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Masks (cloth or otherwise) do in fact reduce infectiousness This has never been proven. Please find me an RCT that shows this. I'll wait. BTW, this is a doubly wrong statement for cloth masks, since cloth masks have plenty of studies showing increases in self-infection, at least relative to wearing a surgical mask.

I just looked, found a whole bunch of stuff on CDC site showing RCT that demonstrates masks do work and that N95 are better than cloth. Where's the RCT that shows they don't work? I couldn't find one.

What RCTs are you referring to? I’d like to take a look.

Ones showing don’t work:

DANMASK (sars-2 community self infection)

Macintyre et al (cloth masks vs “standard practice”, showed possible deleterious effect of cloth masking but did not compare to no-mask)

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#630

Post by __blockcipher__ » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

scythe wrote: post #597

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to get into the philosophy of this, but you should know that mechanistic studies in the absence of RCTs are as good as useless. I can show you how to kill cancer cells in a petri dish. I can't show you how to cure cancer. They're very different beasts. BTW I noticed you mentioned "number and momentum of droplets", which seems to suggest you're still stuck in the old respiratory droplet transmission model an…

>mechanistic studies in the absence of RCTs are as good as useless. This is of course not true. You also neglect other forms of evidence, like natural experiments: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877582/ Demanding RCTs or bust is basically poisoning the well. And for all your "happiness" your posts have no shortage of vitriol. Aerosols are composed of droplets which can be caught in masks, also: https:/…

> Aerosols are composed of droplets

This is backwards. Aerosols are smaller than droplets. You can’t be composed of something bigger than yourself.

Aerosol essentially means it doesn’t fall to the ground like a saliva droplet does.

—

The “natural experiment” you linked is a great example of why RCTs are so important (particularly for anything you’re proposing mandating). Saying “after masking was adopted cases went down” isn’t proof because if you look at the non-mask areas, cases also went down during the period.

—

I’m on mobile so can’t dig up the quote but I’d really recommend reading Medical Nihilism by Stegenga. You seem to have a backwards view of evidentiary standards. That is to say, most findings are false (Ionnidis has a famous paper on this too). That’s why RCTs and the like are so incredibly important.