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

YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 933 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#201

Post by brigandish »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #129
brigandish wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More freedom of speech is the answer to misinformation because then it can be challenged. Censorship allows convenient mistruths to spread unchallenged.

This assumes rational, reasonable and good-faith arguments and behaviour though; if there's a thousand voices (pushed by interest groups, foreign governments, advertisers, etc) pushing one narrative, what's a single challenging voice going to do? I mean I can invoke Godwin's Law, but we don't have to go that far back; everybody knew Trump was a terrible person and he should not have been eligible for the presidency,…

> I mean I can invoke Godwin's Law

Firstly, the Nazis rose despite and possibly helped by speech laws.

> My new favorite wiki page (for now) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Secondly, Popper is not calling for speech to be supressed in any way except for those who choose violence instead of speech. The original[1] is better than a Wikipedia article that cuts off the important part of his words:

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion…

Hence he is supportive of the right to discussion for all. He contrasts this with those who won't support speech and sets the limits:

> for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

They've given up on speech so he gives up on tolerance, which is wise. Free speech is there to reduce violence and supplant it and nothing Popper wrote in the "paradox of tolerance" contradicts that.

[1] https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#202

Post by throwaway744678 »

onion2k wrote: post #166
j8hn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Why didn't we have the science? Respiratory infections aren't new. I remember debating people early in the outbreak about the use of masks and they were pointing out that there was little scientific evidence on the use of masks, e…

My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Because Asian countries were basing their advice on science and the US was basing the advice on what would poll well with Republican voters who believe individual freedom is more important than community welfare. The US absolutely did have acce…

France officials had the very same discourse regarding masks (highly discouraged in February and March, became mandatory in a lot of places in July). The current government is very much closer to US democrats than republicans, to say the least. Probably not a right vs left decision.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#203

Post by zaarn »

brigandish wrote: post #194
zaarn wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube already had plenty of free speech where everyone can say anything unhindered and is rewarded if they generate attention. The ultimate free speech hasn't lead anywhere good on the internet because quacks that previously where relegated to soap boxes in their villages when free speech was thought of in the US are now given the same platform and power of voice as field experts who have studied their domain for y…

> Youtube already had plenty of free speech where everyone can say anything unhindered and is rewarded if they generate attention. Hard to separate that out from the algorithms that promote videos. Would it be as bad, in your eyes, if discovery was "flattened", so to speak? i.e. no recommends, no shaping of the feed, no shadowbans or hidden videos

No because bullshit is easier to make than truth. There is dozens of bot channels that have nothing better to do at the moment but post videos that look like news channel broadcasts with a semi-convincing TTS reads various news regarding conspiracy theories (ie, "Bill Gates about to be arrested over 5G-Corona").

They post videos at almost hourly pace, distributed over several channels and each video has a unique image to it (ie, different logos, different TTS settings). If normal well researched content had to compete with that, it would loose by being buried under the sheer mass of bot generated bullshit.

And that isn't even counting the number of videos produced by actual humans that are just as bad.

A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't above threatening violence and law suits (usually libel) against those exposing them or simply posting the truth, I've heard of multiple instances of that occuring, atleast one in-person.

This isn't two sides arguing peacefully about one position or the other, it's one side being violent and disrespectful to the other. "Flattening" the discovery of other content is basically asking the otherside to be not-violent and stand back so that the violent side can have their say.

Sometimes violence comes from both sides of the debate too (ie, US politics) but that doesn't make the amount of disrespect by people purposefully lying or spreading lies any better.

Free speech, as I see it, means that you can express your opinion freely without repercussions unless it's advocating for violence against people or groups of people. If you're talking about facts, those should not fall under free speech under the simple premise that facts are either provable or you should say that you have no proof or you should expose them as the opinions they are.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#204

Post by konjin »

j8hn wrote: post #177
daveguy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? From what I remember the message very early on wasn't that masks don't work, it was "save the masks for the front line workers"

Here is a short video from the CDC in March of this year. https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889 If you search Google news for "masks" between February and March you can see where the surgeon general and others were saying that masks may increase the likelihood of infection because of touching your face.

I'm glad someone spreading lies like that will be ever banned from youtube.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#205

Post by CryptoPunk »

pzmTWLwfwJ wrote: post #126
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #115

Yay, this is great, and should be used for everything! /s If we used this for medical advice in my country, this would make it very funny... at the start of the epidemic, our government "experts" said: - "healthy people don't need masks" ...and youtube would censor all the "fearmongering paranoics" advocating for mask use. Then on some random spring day, our government makes a new rule: - "you need a mask and gloves…

Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.

A lot of scientific dialogue now happens through mediums like Youtube. Scientists use it as a research tool, and a way to disseminate information to other scientists. Censoring discourse is extremely dangerous, and its detrimental effect on scientific advancement is just one of the reasons why.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#206

Post by tortasaur »

jswny wrote: post #163
j8hn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not disingenuous. The surgeon general said in March that masks were not effective for the general public against Covid-19. The CDC said on March 13, 2020 that there is really no evidence that wearing a mask will reduce your risk for any respiratory infection. https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889

You’re completely misinterpreting the mask situation. Of course they say there’s no evidence that a mask will protect YOU. Masks aren’t supposed to protect YOU. They prevent YOU transmitting the virus to OTHERS. So of course it doesn’t reduce YOUR risk of respiratory infection. That conclusion has not changed. The guidance was pretty clear: they didn’t want people wearing masks because there was a PPE shortage. Now t…

Dr. Fauci has since admitted that U.S. health officials intentionally lied about mask efficacy to prevent PPE shortages: https://techstartups.com/2020/06/17/dr-fauci-admits-health-e...

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#207

Post by [deleted] »

nso95 wrote: post #158
j8hn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Why didn't we have the science? Respiratory infections aren't new. I remember debating people early in the outbreak about the use of masks and they were pointing out that there was little scientific evidence on the use of masks, e…

They lied because they didn't want medical professionals to run out of masks

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#208

Post by DanBC »

nso95 wrote: post #158
j8hn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Why didn't we have the science? Respiratory infections aren't new. I remember debating people early in the outbreak about the use of masks and they were pointing out that there was little scientific evidence on the use of masks, e…

They lied because they didn't want medical professionals to run out of masks

Can you link to the studies that you think existed in March / April 2020 that showed that masks worked?

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#209

Post by konjin »

Shish2k wrote: post #60
s3r3nity wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree on this one - authoritative bodies can be wrong / misled as well, and shouldn't be the only arbiters of truth. Ex: The WHO made many mistakes during COVID, including faulty recommendations and (alleged) influence by a governing body to limit bad press. [1] (Before the ad hominem attacks come in, I'm obviously very pro vaccine...but against censorship and generally distrust authoritative bodies of most kinds.) […

> authoritative bodies can be wrong / misled as well, and shouldn't be the only arbiters of truth I agree, but with a very large caveat - the human brain is not good at probabilities, it basically only recognises “outcome A is guaranteed” and “outcomes A and B are equally likely”. So how much credit should we give to an authority who is correct 90% of the time? 90% isn’t great when it comes to life-or-death matters,…

There's a difference between being wrong about "put a band aid on a cut" and "aids is transmitted by having sex with Puerto Ricans". Health authorities are good at the first, and very bad at the second.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#210

Post by j8hn »

nso95 wrote: post #158
j8hn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Why didn't we have the science? Respiratory infections aren't new. I remember debating people early in the outbreak about the use of masks and they were pointing out that there was little scientific evidence on the use of masks, e…

They lied because they didn't want medical professionals to run out of masks

For a while I assumed they lied as well. Now, looking back I'm not so sure. There really wasn't much scientific evidence of masks being effective for respiratory diseases.
Post reply on HN