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

YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 217 posts

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#51

Post by vertexFarm »

jrhurst wrote: post #26
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…

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.

“Nothing illegal, no medical advice offered, I've always been incredibly careful about this.”

The article then goes on to name several videos with titles like "increase energy," "improve concentration and memory," "improve sleep," etc.

Are there any lawyers around who know of a legal definition for "medical advice" or "medical claims?" Because these videos sound a lot like medical advice despite his insistence that they aren't.

Youtube censorship sucks sometimes, but this guy experimenting on himself is not nearly rigorous enough to figure out what's really happening when he is taking these supplements. When a person sets out to improve themselves with drugs, test the process on themselves, and interpret and analyze those results themselves, it's a viper's pit of biases. Obviously the experimenter has a huge personal stake in the experiment (arguably the largest; his person is the experiment!) and that generally is great for motivation but bad for science.

I like playing with nootropics but I'm also relatively healthy and I can't imagine how damaging it might be for a seriously ill person who is taking advice from youtube in a desperate and futile attempt to improve their condition and survive. The ethics are pretty complex, above my pay grade for sure.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#52

Post by fmihaila »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #44
fmihaila wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a difference between "removing false/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam" and Fahrenheit 451 reply Where does that leave Alex Jones, then? It's called a slippery slope for a reason.

"False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam."

> "False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam."

You seem to be implying that Jones' videos are truthful/informative and totally-not-a-scam, while the videos in the article, which actually contained educational content, were false, misleading, and perpetuating a scam.

Meanwhile, Jones has a supplement business that pulled an estimated $15 mil over two years (some estimate $25 mil) [1]. Here is a sampling of reviews from an independent lab that tested the substances:

- "Both of these products are most likely safe, but ineffective."

- "This product is a waste of money. The claim that 'Anthroplex works synergistically with the powerful Super Male Vitality formula in order to help restore your masculine foundation and stimulate vitality with its own blend of unique ingredients' is fluff on multiple fronts."

- "This product's claims related to 'nascent oxygen' also have no real basis in science."

- "We tested this product on the chance that it might be potassium iodide or sodium iodide, which it wasn't. Survival Shield is just plain iodine."

etc.

This is a guy who "... repeatedly asserted the Sandy Hook shooting was staged and the parents were liars and frauds who helped in a cover-up" [2].

So, what's your definition of false and/or misleading?

[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-in...

[2] https://globalnews.ca/news/4149778/sandy-hook-sue-infowars-c...

EDIT: it seems I misread the intent of the post above mine. My apologies. I'll leave my response up for reference.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#53

Post by pasbesoin »

Here's part of the deal:

Take YouTube, a large commercial interest.

Add their lobbying, that is participating and influencing a limited, largely invitation-only discussion of what video distribution is and will be on the Web.

(I say largely invitation-only, because 10's and 100's of thousands of us can mount campaigns "of the masses" without moving the needle, or generating only a temporary reaction until the powers that be can slip their changes through another avenue or after simply wearing us out.)

Now, they are no longer "just" a commercial provider, free to choose what they wish to host.

They are defining the very nature of Web video (and, more broadly, content) distribution -- to suit their own purposes.

THAT's why you worry when big players start doing stuff. Because it tends to become "the law".

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#54

Post by joew42k »

Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website. Nobody's stopping makers of these videos from hosting the videos themselves.

This is not censorship in the way we have traditionally understood. It only feels like it because Youtube is where the biggest audience is. It's the same whenever Facebook penalizes a post in the timeline, or whenever Google hides content from the search results. They feel like a the phone company or the post office - neutral platforms where people expect the right to free speech. In reality, they are publishers that exercise editorial discretion.

If we had focused on building decentralized platforms with interoperability and open standards, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, you all wanted to make money. (Understandable)

My proposal - the government should recognize that network effects produce defacto monopolies, and use existing anti-trust law to break up these behemoth platforms, or force regulation on them.

In the mean time, I'll shout "i told you so" from my lonely, facebookless, linux-powered compound.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#55

Post by vertexFarm »

kristofferR wrote: post #7

YouTube will probably remove fitness videos soon, since some people invariably are stupid and will hurt themselves with the exercises on display, a completely analogous situation.

I think the validity of exercise being beneficial to one's health is so thoroughly proven that nobody is going to remove those videos as "false medical claims."

It's not the same as saying that an untested supplement will improve some aspect of your mind. Not analogous at all imho.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#56

Post by detaro »

fmihaila wrote: post #52
s73v3r_ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam."

> "False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam." You seem to be implying that Jones' videos are truthful/informative and totally-not-a-scam, while the videos in the article, which actually contained educational content, were false, misleading, and perpetuating a scam. Meanwhile, Jones has a supplement business that pulled an estimated $15 mil over two years (some estimate $25 mil) [1]. Here is a sampling of review…

I believe you are reading the parent poster the wrong way around.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#57

Post by merinowool »

maxerickson wrote: post #36
jerf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on who gets to decide what "false/misleading" is. I'm not sure how this could be any less transparent. I personally see less than no reason to trust YouTube's judgment in these matters.

So should it be illegal to run a curated platform?

To be fair information is a weapon and there should be no free reign for anyone. If you are on purpose suppressing some information to fulfil political agenda - that should be a criminal act.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#58

Post by fmihaila »

detaro wrote: post #56
fmihaila wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "False/misleading videos that perpetuate a scam." You seem to be implying that Jones' videos are truthful/informative and totally-not-a-scam, while the videos in the article, which actually contained educational content, were false, misleading, and perpetuating a scam. Meanwhile, Jones has a supplement business that pulled an estimated $15 mil over two years (some estimate $25 mil) [1]. Here is a sampling of review…

I believe you are reading the parent poster the wrong way around.

Ooops. If so, I deserve what's coming. There's another reading possible, though, so I'm leaving my response up for those who read it the same way I did.

My point is to show that these criteria are very hard to apply consistently, particularly when there's money to be made. Alex Jones' channel is alive and well.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#59

Post by vertexFarm »

joew42k wrote: post #54

Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website. Nobody's stopping makers of these videos from hosting the videos themselves. This is not censorship in the way we have traditionally understood. It only feels like it because Youtube is where the biggest audience is. It's the same whenever Facebook penalizes a post in the timeline, or whenever Google hides content from the search resul…

There should be a social network for lonely, security-obsessed linux people who refuse to partake in social media. Maybe we should start raising homing pigeons and send little notes to each other.

I need to get my ham license one of these days.

Re: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

#60

Post by joew42k »

lostgame wrote: post #25

I run an independent music label in Toronto, and our group has been considering for some time to create a semi-serialized web series but one of the big prohibiting factors in us actually getting it done is that nobody wants to use YouTube. If we generate a serious following that is dependent on the platform we're giving up a tremendous degree of creative control and direction for our fans. Not to mention the serious…

My advice would be to use https://indieweb.org/POSSE That approach might be more agreeable with your label-mates.

I wouldn't put covers in the videos at all. You're right, that's a legal minefield. Just use original music that you have the rights to.

Post reply on HN