Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#691

Post by rglover »

ravenstine wrote: post #456
rglover wrote: post #377

Easy fix for matters like this: citation. If you want to remove a video or other social media post, do so temporarily pending citation. Give people a way to back up their point of view with real data/research. If there is a conflict, put one of those warning banners beneath the video and link to the cited resource. Done. Otherwise, these companies look like oligarchs participating in low-key fascism.

Where exactly would anyone get the time to read citations? That doesn't sound scalable for even a tiny website, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.

That's up to the individual. The whole point is to go hands off but to provide the necessary information to aid people's thinking. The entire problem we face right now is due to meddling in the truth. Leave people alone, let them figure it (or not), and be done with it. Nature will take care of the rest.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#692

Post by nickthemagicman »

CrazyCatDog wrote: post #385
nickthemagicman wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so much contradictory science on what you're claiming as ultimate truth. There's paper saying masks don't work there's paper saying masks do work. This is not a conclusive settled fact.

Indeed, I fear that we have arrived at the sad day where social science research is more conclusive than medical research!

We've arrived at the sad day that discussion is being surpressed on any of these subjects.

Galileo would have been de-platformed for stating views contrary to the narrative and spreading misinformation that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#693

Post by krapp »

gwright wrote: post #664
krapp wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error. Except that doesn't happen. As the saying goes, a lie can travel around the world before the truth laces up its boots. Where is the "clearer perception and livelier impression of truth" being produced by all of the disinformation being spread? Surely, since disinformat…

And so what do you conclude? You seem to be saying that instead of unfettered speech you prefer that some authority step in and pick and choose what speech is to be allowed? And who gets to be in that privileged position of determining what discourse is permitted by everyone else?

>And who gets to be in that privileged position of determining what discourse is permitted by everyone else?

Ok. This exact argument has been rehashed on HN a trillion times already, so what's one more?

Whomever owns the platform decides. Freedom of speech doesn't obligate every possible platform has to be forced to publish your speech - that would be coerced speech, which is a violation of the freedoms of the platform owners. Rights don't exist in a vacuum, they have to be balanced against other rights. You have the right to free speech, but you still have to convince people to listen to you.

"unfettered" freedom of speech has never been a right in any society or on any platform. If you want to publish to Youtube, you have to play by Youtube's rules. If the government takes over Youtube, it's a public platform and you have to play by the government's rules. But there will always be rules and limits to what can and cannot be published. You can create your own platform and have everyone play by your rules, if you like.

Youtube can only control what happens on Youtube. Facebook can only control what happens on Facebook. Twitter can only control what happens on Twitter. None of these platforms can moderate or censor content outside of their platforms, and none of them act as arbiters of truth for the entirety of society by doing so on their own platforms.

My conclusion is that platforms being allowed to moderate their own content - even when their decisions are biased or questionable - is preferable to platforms being forced to host content against their will, and definitely preferable to the government taking ownership of social media platforms (as would happen with the repeal of Section 230 protections) and making decisions about what can and cannot be published across the entire network.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#694

Post by merpnderp »

dathinab wrote: post #363
merpnderp wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying cloth masks are effective in the context of (K)N95 masks is even worse misinformation. Even the CDC's website on masks points out you should really be using (K)N95's, and that cloth masks are completely ineffective when wet, which they get after 15 minutes or so of breathing through them. The science on cloth masks says they work, but only shortly and just barely. Rand Paul is closer to the truth by saying the…

> you should really be using (K)N95's Better masks are obviously better. > completely ineffective when wet, As far as I know this is not correct. I remember to have read a study showing quite well that even a wet cloth mask(1) still contains the spread of aerosols surprisingly well. Sure it's far worse then a medical mask of any kinda but still a surprisingly high improvement compared to the no-mask scenario. > which…

> As far as I know this is not correct.

I'm just going by the CDC's webpage on masks showing a big red X next to using masks that are wet or dirty.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#695

Post by dnautics »

andybak wrote: post #671
dnautics wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't answer your very leading question, but there are PLENTY of people who wear masks, are vaccinated, and are scared of mandates, and are consistent about "raising the bar" across the board (For things besides COVID). They just don't get as much media coverage, because that position doesn't fit into a digestible narrative in today's zeitgeist.

Fair points. But some of this appears to be somewhat US specific. In other countries, the mask debate is more of a fringe issue compared to other broader aspects of COVID restrictions. From an outside perspective, masks seem to have taken on an unwarranted significance that might be peculiar to the US political discourse.

It's bizzare to me that it hasn't in other places. When you issue a mandate, it's automatically politicized. In a parallel universe this could have gone so much differently if, trump say, said "I'm not going to force you to wear masks, but please wear them".

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#696

Post by merpnderp »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #553
merpnderp wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying cloth masks are effective in the context of (K)N95 masks is even worse misinformation. Even the CDC's website on masks points out you should really be using (K)N95's, and that cloth masks are completely ineffective when wet, which they get after 15 minutes or so of breathing through them. The science on cloth masks says they work, but only shortly and just barely. Rand Paul is closer to the truth by saying the…

Saying cloth masks are effective in the context of (K)N95 masks is even worse misinformation. Even the CDC's website on masks points out you should really be using (K)N95's, and that cloth masks are completely ineffective when wet, which they get after 15 minutes or so of breathing through them. Edit: map is just Sydney. Australia is currently attempting to contain the spread of the Delta strain. You can see the map…

There is little reason to doubt a well fitted (K)N95 or other counterpart works well. But cloth masks are unproven to help and there are many other variables that could be in play here. For instance, people who wear masks might spend much less time within 6' of each other, be more likely to be vaccinated, or some other confounding factor to mask effectiveness.

Also I've not seen a single cloth mask particulate test that has tried to reproduce the dampness level of a cloth mask that's been worn for an hour. In any but the driest climates that mask will be damp and much less effective.

And given how few studies have been done on cloth mask efficacy over the last year, it is likely the experts already know that cloth masks don't do much.

My argument isn't that people shouldn't wear masks, it's that now that cheap, plentiful, effective quality masks are available, people are still being told to wear cloth masks. I assume that's the same confusion that got the Senator banned from Youtube.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#697

Post by iammisc »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #648
iammisc wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is an opthalmologist not an optometrist. A md degree gives you the ability to practice medicine. Paul will have been trained on the whole body. The eye speciality is an added specialization. As an MD he should be able to do everything from basic first aid to general diagnosis to delivering a baby in a woman even with major complications should he have to. He may have to do some research and reading but he is autho…

That's like pretending that the lead developer on MS Word and John Carmack are equally qualified and capable to speak on 3d graphics algorithm optimizations because they both know computer things. The best Paul can hope to do is to read the results research that these experts ACTUALLY PERFORMED. He's not on their level and his opinion on the matter has zero importance other than his vote in the Senate.

If the lead MS word developer listens to Carmack's thoughts and points out problems, he's more than qualified.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#698

Post by andybak »

dnautics wrote: post #695
andybak wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair points. But some of this appears to be somewhat US specific. In other countries, the mask debate is more of a fringe issue compared to other broader aspects of COVID restrictions. From an outside perspective, masks seem to have taken on an unwarranted significance that might be peculiar to the US political discourse.

It's bizzare to me that it hasn't in other places. When you issue a mandate, it's automatically politicized. In a parallel universe this could have gone so much differently if, trump say, said "I'm not going to force you to wear masks, but please wear them".

To me it feels a bit like "I'm not going to do this thing because you've told me to. If you hadn't have told me then I might have done it but I'm damned if I'm going to now".

Which is fine when the public demonstration of a point of principle isn't as important as the thing itself. Otherwise it's a collective act of cutting of one's nose to spite one's face.

But maybe this is the part that is somewhat US specific. The relationship of the people to the government seems to have an almost mythic role in political identity - rather than a somewhat more pragmatic one that I recognize in the UK.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#699

Post by kgarten »

belorn wrote: post #683
kgarten wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anything that interfere with droplet dispersion is better than nothing ... no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwOwMsCc6NA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAvO_QdO9eM Seems basic to me ... If the droplets from me don't reach to the first person in the cinema I cannot infect them.

> If the droplets from me don't reach to the first person in the cinema I cannot infect them. It would be nice if that was true. In a small study here in Sweden they tested for covid particles in the AC system, and found particles in every single place they tested. This in a major hospital where everyone are wearing masks, and where the AC is located in the ceiling. The finding was not what the researcher was expecti…

Yes, that's the point masks are better than nothing. They might reduce the likelihood (without much of a negative impact). That's why we should wear them.

A vaccination also just reduces the likelihood you get covid. People can still get it and still spread it, even if they are vaccinated. It just reduces the likelihood and masks might do that as well ...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#700

Post by gwright »

krapp wrote: post #693
gwright wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so what do you conclude? You seem to be saying that instead of unfettered speech you prefer that some authority step in and pick and choose what speech is to be allowed? And who gets to be in that privileged position of determining what discourse is permitted by everyone else?

>And who gets to be in that privileged position of determining what discourse is permitted by everyone else? Ok. This exact argument has been rehashed on HN a trillion times already, so what's one more? Whomever owns the platform decides. Freedom of speech doesn't obligate every possible platform has to be forced to publish your speech - that would be coerced speech, which is a violation of the freedoms of the platfo…

We are talking about two different things.

Platforms should be able to have an editorial policy. That doesn't magically make their policy immune from criticism.

YouTube or Facebook presenting their editorial choices as "truth", dissenting opinions as dangerous falsehoods, alternate thoughts as offensive hate speech, and different conclusions as "misinformation" is dangerous to our public discourse.

Post reply on HN