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

YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#311

Post by enriquto »

mattigames wrote: post #226
mariodiana wrote: post #65

I 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…

I woulb be surprised if even 1% of the videos being pulled out are moderate voices, but that's the price of moderation, in order to enjoy any freedom you need to stay alive but if you get killed by disinformation you lose them all, so in such cases as this one moderation of mass communication channels is the lesser evil even if a few reasonable people get their content pulled out.

Let's kill them all and God will choose the good ones!

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#312

Post by specialist »

ascar wrote: post #271
listless wrote: post #174

My 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.

That line of reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me. One of my family members is also very hesitant to get the vaccine and gets all kind of anti-vaccine propaganda through various groups and channels. She takes that content as "reasonable" and "potentially true" even tho basically all of what I've seen is simply untrue. E.g. an article claiming there were more deaths due to covid vaccines than to covid, which is…

There's no silver bullet for cults and other addictions.

Unwinding decades of malfeasance and indoctrination takes time and effort.

Even those who snap out of it then spend decades coming to terms.

Even worse: The liberal tendency to cult shame and scold backfires. (Am guilty as charged.)

The only effective remedy I'm aware of is distraction and redirection. Like the guy who slow walked his wife out of the QAnon cult by encouraging her interest in the opera.

Meanwhile, cockblocking the grifters helps too.

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#314

Post by colpabar »

ascar wrote: post #271
listless wrote: post #174

My 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.

That line of reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to me. One of my family members is also very hesitant to get the vaccine and gets all kind of anti-vaccine propaganda through various groups and channels. She takes that content as "reasonable" and "potentially true" even tho basically all of what I've seen is simply untrue. E.g. an article claiming there were more deaths due to covid vaccines than to covid, which is…

>So we have a situation where keeping the content is reinforcing the beliefs and where blocking the content is also reinforcing the beliefs, because "legitimate" content telling "the truth" is blocked "without reason".

I'd say that blocking the content doesn't always reinforce their beliefs. For a lot of people, reading something that is then blocked at a later date reinforces the belief that the information they consumed is not only true, but so true that it has to be censored by some authority, because it would threaten said authority's legitimacy.

As an example, imagine you think that the police are too violent, and you stumble upon police bodycam footage of a cop getting unnecessarily violent at a traffic stop. You bookmark the video, and then later when you try to tell people about it, the video has been taken down the police, for whatever reason. Wouldn't that reinforce your belief that police are too violent?

I know this isn't a perfect example, because a video of someone doing something is much different than an article making claims based on little to no evidence. But the reason some people's beliefs are reinforced by censorship is because they can't help but wonder if the people doing the censoring are trying to hide something.

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#315

Post by Koshkin »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #249
listless wrote: post #174

My 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.

Truth it is. Whatever their motto of the day, companies have no morals or principles, they are driven purely by their business goals and would change their policies in a blink of an eye when they feel it would help their business.

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#316

Post by codyswann »

mariodiana wrote: post #65

I 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…

Don't be naive. It's not the wackos who won't have a platform. It's the people who know vaccines aren't dangerous, but realize they can snag an audience by claiming otherwise, so they prey on those people. These charlatans are the people who won't have a platform and, I say good riddance.

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#317

Post by jonemi »

_hilro wrote: post #284
mariodiana wrote: post #65

I 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…

MD is a just a general doctor correct? So, who is he to make that proclamation: > 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. But months ago that was "anti-vax" (employing the slanderous use of the term). He doesn't have the expertise to say this.

MD means Doctor of Medicine, i.e., they completed medical school. Dr. Fauci is a Doctor of Medicine in that he completed medical school and received his MD.

After medical school, doctors will enter a residency program for a specialty, but they are still MDs (DOs are equivalent). Their post-graduate training (residency and fellowship) varies but they are still MDs. MDs who specialize in infectious disease or epidemiology are still MDs. MDs who specialize in family medicine are still MDs.

You are falsely inferring MD means GP (general practitioner) which it may or may not. And you are further falsely inferring that a GP cannot have expertise in virology and immunology, which they likely don't, but they may. If you were to conclude a GP does not have CREDENTIALS to speak authoritatively about virology and immunology, I'd accept that assertion.

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#318

Post by new_stranger »

aioprisan wrote: post #227
mariodiana wrote: post #65

I 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…

Vaccines work by prompting a targeted (partial) immune response. They give your body advanced designs for part of the virus so it can be proactive - the con is a vaccine can not provide all of the information.

Contracting a virus provides your body with the full genetic footprint of the virus. Assuming you survive, you should have better antibodies than what a vaccine can provide.

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#319

Post by president »

deelowe wrote: post #134

Of 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…

Don't forget, the term "anti-vaxers" has become a catch-all term for shutting down the slightest criticism about the virus, whether fact or opinion. I have seen this term slung at people simply questioning vaccine mandates and passports in casual conversations both online and offline. Very few people are anti-vax but they powers that be would like most people to think there are only 2 sides. We live in dangerous times.

Re: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

#320

Post by willcipriano »

_hilro wrote: post #284
mariodiana wrote: post #65

I 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…

MD is a just a general doctor correct? So, who is he to make that proclamation: > 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. But months ago that was "anti-vax" (employing the slanderous use of the term). He doesn't have the expertise to say this.

Do you have the expertise to evaluate his expertise? Did the person who granted you proof of this expertise also have sufficient expertise to do so? What about the person above that? What is the root of expertise? Plato with his allegory of the cave, casually dismissing claims that come from the wrong mouths in his lofty opinion?

In my mind it would be simpler to evaluate claims as they are rather than bringing the speakers life story into it.

Post reply on HN