Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

motherboard.vice.com

201–210 of 217 posts

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#201
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know that Pepsi is made from dead babies? I didn't, before YouTube [1]. It turns out you can say almost anything you want on video without it being a legal issue. I don't think regulators care about this small-time stuff. [1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d72KsFEenz8

groan I actually had to address that claim during a lecture once. Ridiculous. For the record, I think anyone peddling pseudoscience regarding medical conditions should be shutdown hard and fast. People who suffer from chronic pain or incurable illness can become desperate and turn to charlatans whose snake-oil can produce terrible effects. It isn't harmless to prey on such insecurities. http://whatstheharm.net/

It's a harder problem than it appears. As I've written about before on Hacker News, I have Celiac disease and over my lifetime I've suffered from a variety of nutritional deficiencies.

In the past year I've gone from suffering heart problems so bad that I was becoming completely unable to sleep at night to having them nearly fixed [1]. (Point here being, we are waaaay beyond anything "placebo" could possibly do. Bright, shining, clear-as-day signals here.) I've done this by finding information from various sources about supplements that can address these problems.

Now, being a HN denizen and reasonably rational, I've done this by figuring out nutritional deficiencies and reading various papers. So I'm not taking random herbs or anything; I'm taking amino acids and magnesium and some other things that I can find various papers that suggest that they may help. I can even find actual doctors who seem to be quite reasonable and respected in their field recommending the core of regimen I'm on, so I'm far away from looney-land. However, in strict scientific terms, that is as far as science has gotten... some papers that suggest that further research is necessary, but said further research has not (as far as I can tell) been done yet, and substantial case reports from doctors but not much in the way of formal studies.

Everything I've tried, generally speaking the worst case scenario is that Nothing Happens, the upside is "maybe my heart will start working better", and the monetary cost has been negligible to me, so I've been able to work through things and figure out what helps, and the things that didn't help my particular problem.

(It is often pointed out that drug companies have little incentive to study the effectiveness of unpatentable substances on disease. My Celiac may be skewing the results, but based on the digging I've done into may various issues over the years, I have to say that it certainly appears to me that there is good reason to believe that there are a lot of cures, treatments, and ameliorations available for a whole host of diseases that are often studied in a cheap paper with a small sample size, or even in the form of case studies, but that are never followed up on because nobody's got the funding if it isn't going to produce a drug. If you've got something even slightly rare and you aren't getting a good treatment, I highly recommend trawling through the sludge of the internet and filtering it through a scientific understanding. You may be surprised at what you can find. You'll certainly find sludge, but there may be unexpected diamonds in there. Very often many of the interventions carry little risk beyond not working and are very cheap to try. I always double-check and triple-check the risks first, but sometimes it's as simple as "have you tried vitamin B supplements?" or something, where the risks are generally very well understood.)

But drawing a bright shining line between the resources I used to do this and "psuedoscience" is going to be very, very difficult. In fact at times the two were outright mixed together, and I had to untangle them myself. Yes, we know the worst stuff when we see it, absolutely, and I am not suggesting this space should be unregulated. However, I am suggesting that free speech is still a concern here, and I will personally be very unhappy if you lop what could very well be 30 years off my life in the name of "protecting" me.

Is it a challenge to filter this stuff correctly? Yeah. Nobody said life would be easy.

[1]: Conventional medicine put me on a heart monitor for a month and proceeded to announce to me that it was all normal that my heart was beating so wrongly that it was literally keeping me up at night. I have to admit this was definitely a bit of a blow in my confidence in the medical field. It all worked out for the best in the end anyhow; fixing the underlying deficiencies is a better idea that trying to take any medication to patch over the broken system, which is probably what would have happened. As my own further digging into the problem revealed, heart arrhythmia medicine can be a lifesaver in some circumstances, but it is also almost as like to cause the problems as to improve them. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have helped me, because my problem was, again, missing nutrients, and generally you can't medicine over that.

(So, for the aforementioned reasons, I don't have an official diagnosis, but I'm pretty sure it would be called "Vagal Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation". My mother suffers from AF, though I'm not sure of the exact subclassification, and I get my celiac from my father, so... yay genes.)

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#202
post #90
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the problem is people thinking that censorship is something only a government can do, It's not. Private companies can attempt to silence people. But Youtube isn't preventing the creators from hosting content elsewhere. They aren't hitting them with a slapp lawsuit. They aren't colluding with other websites to ban these videos. Youtube is just saying "host these somewhere else." How is that different from a publishi…

> "But Youtube isn't preventing the creators from hosting content elsewhere. They aren't hitting them with a slapp lawsuit. They aren't colluding with other websites to ban these videos." Again, you're not refuting anything that anybody here actually thinks. > "Well it is a little different. For the reason I mentioned in my post. Because youtube is the only game in town." Exactly, which is why the devil's advocate ro…

> Again, you're not refuting anything that anybody here actually thinks.

And you aren't refuting what I said. How is this any different than a book publisher deciding what books to publish? Are you saying youtube and other websites should be forced to host content they don't agree with? Should HN be held to the same rules? How would that work?

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

really? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=magnesium+sleep+research&t=ffsb&ia... First result: The effect of magnesium supplementation on primary insomnia in elderly: A double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Supplementation of magnesium appears to improve subjective measures of insomnia such as ISI score, sleep efficiency, sleep time and sleep onset latency, early morning awakening, and likewise, insomnia…

Thank you

hey homie!!! you know when I said, "hardly experimental," I meant non-controversial, right? I mean, you're not some risky, crazy quack, just a regular dude reviewing the well-known stuff that we should all know!

I hope you find a new venture in your Ikegai!!!!

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#204
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, it isn't necessarily a crazy idea taking nutritional supplements without any evidence that they accomplish anything useful and without a physician's advice is generally a bad idea (the default mode is not 'take until suggested otherwise' but 'only take if necessary'), and trying to make money off it by marketing them on youtube is even more misera…

So any advice or opinion on YouTube that isn't backed by a scientific study should be simply removed?

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#205
post #140

Look, I know there are plenty of people here who will sing the praises of their chosen Nootropic stack, but quite honestly, the majority of the videos I have seen on the subject online tout over-the-counter supplements as miracle pills with limitless-esque possibilities. 9/10 pieces of advice I see on Nootropic use amount to dangerous and misinformed medical advice. I can understand why YouTube would want to avoid lo…

I wasn't aware YouTube is liable for any advice on it's platform. Is that the case?

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#206

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.

I agree with the other two replies, but I wanted to add: the claim is going to be the strongest they think they can get away with. If they’re not making specific claims about specific outcomes, that implies they know they can’t get away with it. And, if they could make those claims, it would no longer be a “supplement,” but a “drug.”

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>while science isn't saying you should use magnesium for sleep per se, it isn't necessarily a crazy idea taking nutritional supplements without any evidence that they accomplish anything useful and without a physician's advice is generally a bad idea (the default mode is not 'take until suggested otherwise' but 'only take if necessary'), and trying to make money off it by marketing them on youtube is even more misera…

So any advice or opinion on YouTube that isn't backed by a scientific study should be simply removed?

No, but medical advice falls into a special category of the law.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#208
post #183
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)

First, there is nothing in that wiki page that suggests that ZMA is a sleep aid. Second, the fitness community is prone to quackery.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#210

So a creator trusts the guidelines provided by youtube and invests in a business to find out later youtube can actually shut that business down without a tangible reason. I don't understand how being a private entity gives youtube the right to make a false advertisement and treat their creators as fools. Is it clearly stated that youtube can remove your videos just because? (considering, claiming it's not fitting gui…

Of course it is. Almost every single sharing service has some sort of clause in their ToS that they can remove any content at their discretion.

I get that. I wish I emphasized "clearly" because it seems common practice to create a false perception of justice/security/privacy with almost every single online service now. I just don't understand how this practice can be the "right" of any entity not just private. This sounds like an excuse for people who know to despise others for not knowing.
Post reply on HN