[deleted]
YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
241–250 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#242Thank god, praying that this includes those vagabond anti-booster folks (JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE VACCINATED DOESNT MEAN YOU'RE FULLY VACCINATED!!!)
Well, I do believe two FDA officials resigned in protest saying there was no scientific evidence for the efficacy of a third dose, and that does sound like legitimate informed scientific dissent.
I think the claim that this 'third dose' was pushed through by pharmaceutical corporations and compliant government officials can't be so glibly dismissed, given such issues.
Of course, future data might support or undermine this view, but it's hardly 'anti-vax hysteria'. Our pharmaceutical system has a long history of this kind of thing, due to their mindless focus on profit margins with much less regard for the safety or efficacy of their products. Look up the Vioxx debacle, for example.
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#243I think we have to ask if this won't have a chilling effect on open discussion by moderate voices. I'm subscribed to the channel of an M.D. on YouTube who discusses COVID-19, vaccines, etc. He is very careful to (repeatedly) point out that he is vaccinated, he has personally vaccinated hundreds of patients, he encourages everyone to speak to their doctor and follow their recommendations, believing that the vaccine is…
Yes, making claims about vaccines with without basis is "anti-vax"
Does this include those that made claims about the effectiveness of the vaccine that turned out to be overstated?
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#244Time for repeat showing of the free speech debate we’ve already had a dozen times, whoopee! As ever, IMO, the problem isn’t the hosting or the banning, it’s the algorithms. I don’t care whether YouTube hosts anti-vaccine activists, I care that they actively promote anti-vaccine content to users simply because it’s proven to get clicks and earn them money. Bans like this look incredibly stupid when you realise YouTube…
> proven to get clicks and earn them money Aren't they already 'demonetised' (as Youtube terms its withdrawal of adverts and hence money)? I agree though, simply not recommending them (i.e. you can be linked to them, or get them from search results only) would be better.
Demonetised videos can be loss leaders, pulling views to other monetised videos and having the user stay on the platform.
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#245I think we have to ask if this won't have a chilling effect on open discussion by moderate voices. I'm subscribed to the channel of an M.D. on YouTube who discusses COVID-19, vaccines, etc. He is very careful to (repeatedly) point out that he is vaccinated, he has personally vaccinated hundreds of patients, he encourages everyone to speak to their doctor and follow their recommendations, believing that the vaccine is…
> Months ago he was insisting that the people who had contracted COVID-19 and who had antibodies in their system may not need the vaccine. Now, we have a number of studies coming out to support that.
He was insisting without any studies? How is that not a problem?
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#246This is worrying. I still remember, in March 2020 believing that face masks work was still the contrarian opinion. Large Western countries such as USA, Germany, changed their official position in April. WHO changed their position in June. My country (Finland) only in the end of August. If contrarian voices had been efficiently suppressed, would the medical mainstream have changed their position at all?
Are you suggesting YouTube helped reverse the position on masks?
The anti-mask recommendation was a decision made by the political mainstream, not medical. It wasn't a poll of doctors or scientists that determined whether we thought masks worked. And in the end, at least in the US, I don't think the official position switched because of contrarian voices. It switched because supply caught up with demand.
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#247I think we have to ask if this won't have a chilling effect on open discussion by moderate voices. I'm subscribed to the channel of an M.D. on YouTube who discusses COVID-19, vaccines, etc. He is very careful to (repeatedly) point out that he is vaccinated, he has personally vaccinated hundreds of patients, he encourages everyone to speak to their doctor and follow their recommendations, believing that the vaccine is…
> Months ago he was insisting that the people who had contracted COVID-19 and who had antibodies in their system may not need the vaccine. Now, we have a number of studies coming out to support that. No such study exists, please link to the primary research. Vaccination always offers stronger protection than getting the virus [1], and more importantly, even if they offered equivalent protection for 99% of people, the…
That’s not really true that vaccination is always more protective, immunology is complex and there’s more interesting nuance to that. See the latest twiv with Shane Crotty, he goes into detail about how natural infection plus one shot creates a better response than reversing the order.
I’m not wringing my hands over anti vax content being pulled at all, but I don’t think we should be reductive about the science. That doesn’t help to establish trust.
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#248Of course it will. Welcome to the new propaganda. Same as the old propaganda. Free speech is the act of standing up for those who you disagree with simply because you believe they have the right to be heard. In today's world of "woke" content creators, everyone seems to miss this point. What started out as fairly clear cut issues such as racism and homophobia has now bled into grey areas around vaccines and gain of f…
The rationale is:
"There's no time to be debating the scientific consensus right now. We are in a crisis. Lives are at stake. Debating and questioning the consensus (even if it changes) will cause misinformation to propagate and lives to be lost. The only way to optimize for lives saved is to temporarily take away some fundamental freedoms like speech so that the smart people in charge can resolve the crisis with minimal loss of life."
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#249My wife is very vaccine hesitant, and every time they make a move like this to block content or take it down, it only strengthens her position. She thinks they’re taking it down because they don’t want people to know the truth. The only thing worse than bad ideas is the suppression of bad ideas. It’s tragic that we knew this at some point, but are going to have to figure it all back out again the hard way.
> She thinks they’re taking it down because they don’t want people to know the truth.
The sad truth is, they do this just because of fucking ad revenue. There's no grand conspiracy against, or even for anti-vaccination movements. It's just people selling the world for a quick buck.
And some people are still shooting me weird looks when I keep telling them that advertising is a cancer on modern society.
Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content
#250Free speech used to mean the right to say anything without persecution. Does it now mean the right to have ones opinion be actively globally distributed by a third party? This is very much about fighting two viruses: one biological and the other one informational. We agree to limit contacts between people to stop the one but do not accept the same method to stop the other. Why? In both cases it is vital to ensure the…
> Free speech used to mean the right to say anything without persecution.
It never meant that. People have always been similarly free to say "that guy is a dick, we shouldn't invite him to our get togethers" based on your free speech.