YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#181

Post by girvo » Tue, May 01, 2018, 7:33 AM UTC

dbasedweeb wrote: post #159

stevecronin wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always made it very clear not to make medical claims.

Relax and Improve Your Sleep with Natural Calm Magnesium If that’s your version of very clear, maybe you shouldn’t be giving people advice.

Y’know, he’s right: that’s technically not a medical claim, it’s a “non-functional” claim. Of course, I also get what you mean; to you and I, that looks exactly like a medical claim! The regulations for all this are slightly mental, which is why things like homeopathy and those bullshit “skinny tea” pyramid schemes survive

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#182

Post by girvo » Tue, May 01, 2018, 7:37 AM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #172

PaulHoule wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that magnesium helps my sleep, particularly the cheaper forms. The more expensive chelated forms seem to do less for me.

The placebo effect is a real effect

Indeed, and I find my zinc/magnesium tablets an excellent way to induce it. I also find my 3000IU of vitamin D excellent in the other direction, for waking me up. Quite probably they’re both placebo, but it works, is safe in the amounts I take, and is cheap :)

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#183

Post by gaius » Tue, May 01, 2018, 7:38 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #9

"Cronin’s YouTube channel was up to about 22,000 subscribers when he received a notice from YouTube about one of his videos, “Relax and Improve Your Sleep with Natural Calm Magnesium.” The notice said the video had been removed for violating YouTube’s community guidelines, but didn’t specify further." Magnesium isn't even a nootropic. That is, while it may have some ability to boost cognition, it isn't a substance pr…

while science isn't saying you should use magnesium for sleep per se

In the fitness community ZMA is widely considered a sleep aid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZMA_(supplement)

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#184

Post by girvo » Tue, May 01, 2018, 7:49 AM UTC

RoyTyrell wrote: post #78

maxerickson wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's a political agenda? Is the promotion of cats a political agenda? Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs?

> Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs? Sure. Why shouldn't a private entity be able to determine what kind of speech they allow on their own property?

Because if they have a huge defacto monopoly, and also a outsized impact on our culture, the impacts of them doing so are far more far-reaching than, say, LiveLeak removing some video (trying to think of a competitor for YT is surprisingly hard).

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#185

Post by girvo » Tue, May 01, 2018, 7:55 AM UTC

kirykl wrote: post #105

LoSboccacc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sure, feel free to use any of these alternative services that offer a large potential reach and allow easy monetization of user content:

in the US you have a right to free speech, not mass reach

Then that definition of free speech ignores the changes in culture and communication, no? (I’m not even disagreeing with you, I’m more curious here. This article and discussion has brought up interesting points I think)

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#186

Post by gaius » Tue, May 01, 2018, 8:22 AM UTC

butterfi wrote: post #6

xstephen95x wrote: post #4

Who is YouTube to decide what I can and can't watch?

The owners of the platform. They are not a public service nor to they have to pretend to be one.

They are not a public service nor to they have to pretend to be one.

But they do pretend that, all the time. They are a common carrier when it suits them and a publisher with editorial control when it suits them. That’s not reasonable and they must be forced to choose one or the other.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#187

Post by klez » Tue, May 01, 2018, 8:31 AM UTC

Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #101

joew42k wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It totally does. Why is such a big chunk of our culture is hosted by a private company?

I guess because people chose to upload it there. We can’t stop people from going to YouTube, that’s where the audience is. It’s a bit concerning that you mention being hosted by a “private” company. Would you prefer the government hosting this data?

There's not just "private company" and "the government". There's "informal group", "association of people", "single person hosting their own stuff".

In the world I dream of, I could easily (and "easily" is the key word wrt the fact we're not there yet) host my own stuff and it would be visible to other people without a company or a government as intermediaries (except maybe for infrastructure, but that's something that can be solved, in the abstract, by mesh networks).

Of course we're not even close to having that, but the point is we should (IMHO) point our efforts in that direction. Is there money there? I don't know. Should I care there is no money there? I'm not sure.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#188

Post by atomical » Tue, May 01, 2018, 9:29 AM UTC

2_listerine_pls wrote: post #175

atomical wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you?

It was a joke...

It was sarcasm. I explained my position.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#189

Post by corobo » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:11 AM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #118

jrhurst wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is medical claims are highly regulated in the West. So there is a likely legal liability for youtube in the US and in the UK. In fact, they might have already had pressure from regulators.

Meanwhile MontrealHealthyGirls' YouTube channel is far worse. Her cancer and diabetes "cures" she's downright dangerous, and nuts.

Have you reported the channel?

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#190

Post by corobo » Tue, May 01, 2018, 10:14 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #166

driverdan wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are called non-functional claims and are allowed in the US. Any time you see something non-specific like "boosts the immune system" or "increases energy" it means the product is likely worthless because those claims don't actually mean anything.

How do those claims not mean anything? They sound pretty clear to me.

Because if the products actually worked they'd be allowed to claim they work for actual diagnoses (e.g. "Fixes Insomnia from dose 4" vs "Promotes sleep")