YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#251

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:19 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #5

I don't really care the content at all, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. In the US, I don't know an obvious issue besides legislative change to enforce this. However, once they consider themselves as "curators" of information with near-monopoly status, I hope they are litigated against successfully.

When I end a phone call, Verizon does not call me back with suggested other calls I should listen to next.

The opportunity to be a neutral carrier is sacrificed by any platform that deploys a recommendation engine. Recommending content is a form of curation, which makes them a publisher, conceptually. It does not matter if the content curation is done by hand or by an algorithm that was built by hand.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#252

Post by compuguy » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:20 PM UTC

restingrobot wrote: post #185

MattGaiser wrote: post #20

I suggest everyone read this fellow's Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora

You know that anyone can edit a wikipedia page right? I think it's telling that this man is an ex director at the WHO with over 50 years experience as an Oncologist and rather than listen to what he is saying, people are continually trying to discredit him.

He accepted as "Chief of the Cancer Program" of the World Health Organization. Where are you reading that he was a director of the WHO?

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#253

Post by michaelborromeo » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:21 PM UTC

okreallywtf wrote: post #181

I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while misinformation is doing damage right this second. The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I…

To get people to eat veggies, sure you can ban the production and sale of junk food.

I prefer to live in a world where both are available and the preferred solution is education about the effects of junk food.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#254

Post by garyclarke27 » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:21 PM UTC

Appalling behaviour by YouTube. Until recently I admired Google, no longer, this kind of opinion based censorship (facts have yet to be established re covid), makes my blood boil, Google must be urgently regulated to protect free speech.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#255

Post by joeclark77 » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:23 PM UTC

dpeterson wrote: post #149

Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous. Platforms like Youtube are beyond ubiquitous and we all depend on them. The companies behind them have more money than countries. That, combined with the tax free private foundations their founders nearly all have, is taking us down some very bad roads. Of course, those…

On top of that, you have to realize that these countries (YT, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are completely obedient to the government of China. Not because it's their biggest market, but because China will shut them out if they don't toe the line. Whereas the US and Europe have never indicated a willingness to sanction these companies no matter what. It's a tyranny of the minority.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#256

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:23 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #217

_vertigo wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are moderating the content on their platform with respect to their business process and company values, those decisions are not a reflection of credibility. YouTube is a corporate product This is such a tired argument. YouTube is ubiquitous - it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform for video hosting, which today comprises a large proportion of all information transfer between humans. Companies like…

There are a million options for video hosting. You are performing some sleight of hand here - claiming they are the only way to share your view - when what you are really referring to is that they have the most viewers, and that they have tools for promoting content in front of that audience. "I deserve access to an audience on their system" is a very weak claim compared to the (untrue) "they are the only place I can…

Youtube

Vimeo

Name the next five that are discoverable, host your videos for free, and can stream that to millions of people in a single day.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#257

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:26 PM UTC

ppod wrote: post #23

MattGaiser wrote: post #20

I suggest everyone read this fellow's Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora

Do you think that such people should be banned from content distribution channels?

I think that's a much broader question than whether one content distribution company has the right to ban a person from their own channel--which is actually what's happening here.

Passive voice makes the situation seem more universal and nefarious than it actually is.

"Do you think that such people should be banned from sleeping in houses"? No, but I think I should be allowed to decide who sleeps in my house.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#258

Post by cfmcdonald » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:26 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #201

mullingitover wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is such a tired argument. YouTube is ubiquitous - it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform for video hosting Far from it. You can host your video anywhere you like, but you get the most eyeballs and revenue from YouTube, and that's based on user preference and not on some nefarious activity on their part. A lot of what makes them successful as a hosting platform is the same content curation that peo…

> A lot of what makes them successful as a hosting platform is the same content curation that people like to complain about. I'm not sure about this. Besides removing obvious hate speech, which sort of content curation do you mean? I thought its success was due to everyone being able to upload and share video clips. I don't think curation was an important feature.

YouTube is perceived as a family-friendly, PG to PG-13 brand. It would be a very different, and much more niche, environment if it were a free-for-all of pornography, obscene language and graphic violence.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#259

Post by kiba » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

macinjosh wrote: post #193

okreallywtf wrote: post #181

I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while misinformation is doing damage right this second. The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I…

IMHO, this is an incredibly authoritarian point of view. It makes the assumption that the content being censored or banned is both wrong and damaging. I am not only referring to this specific case, but the interviewee here is ostensibly someone of expertise being a professor of medicine. That doesn't mean what they say is correct but at the very least they have direct knowledge of the topic. In the grand scheme of th…

IMHO, this is an incredibly authoritarian point of view.

Is it authoritarian if misinformation are being spread?

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#260

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, May 21, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

michaelborromeo wrote: post #253

okreallywtf wrote: post #181

I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while misinformation is doing damage right this second. The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I…

To get people to eat veggies, sure you can ban the production and sale of junk food. I prefer to live in a world where both are available and the preferred solution is education about the effects of junk food.

There are many actors that want to convince you something bad, is good. Historically, cigarettes, sugar, even cocaine were advertised as healthy, or as better substitutes to things. Hell, even grain is still pushed by industry and government, when low-carb has a lot of evidence backing it.

Guess what happened when we decided "telling people sugar is great for kids" was bad? The government now regulates the information people are provided regarding nutritional content in food.

Speech isn't so easy, which is why the analogy still doesn't work.