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

YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#51

Post by mikewarot »

There are certain topics which Youtube will not allow, they have various soft means of enforcing boundaries around those edges. One of those topics is analysis and discussion of Covid 19. They (Bret and Heather) have been very careful to stay within the stated rules, yet this still happened.

At some point, enough of us viewers will decide that it is worth overcoming the network effects, and get used to some new platforms for content sharing.

There are plenty of things you won't see anymore on YouTube. A year or two ago, videos focused on guns were removed. Even machine shop channels talking about the machining of parts had those videos removed.

Our ability to discuss things like adults is under threat.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#52

Post by mikedilger »

lambdaba wrote: post #6

I'd like to hear from critics of Bret that have actually watched his content, in particular the episode with Dr. Pierre Kory. Do you support YouTube's decision? What about YouTube taking down Dr. Kory's Senate testimony?

NOT HAPPY WITH YOUTUBE SPLITTING UP SOCIETY: I'm not happy that YouTube (having a strong network-effect monopoly on online video content) has decided to close the Overton window so much. People interested in the information will get it elsewhere. These kinds of policies have caused people who follow edgy content to find that content elsewhere, and those "elsewheres" can be very nasty and radicalizing places (such as BitChute). I wish YouTube kept people from getting radicalized, but they seem to push people away and into those radical corners...

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT BEST ADJUDICATORS, BETTER HYPOTHESIZERS: Bret and Heather are scientists and as such are not necessarily of the best mental positioning to adjudicate facts. How so? Scientists should form hypotheses and argue for them. Scientists must as a group take on and argue for multiple hypotheses, vigorously. The data will decide who wins. It is quite appropriate that Bret and Heather have taken up hypotheses in regards to Ivermectin and in regard to possible damage from the vaccines. That doesn't make these views "the final word" or even "stated as factual". I think Bret and Heather would agree and I think they try to make clear that their opinions are hypotheses.

As an example, Bret had a guest on who argued that the number of deaths associated with vaccinations was off the charts. Bret didn't agree but didn't counter-argue. The information was highly misleading. Last episode (on Odysee) they brought up a paper studying Israel where via vaccinations for every 3 people saved, 2 are lost. They weren't at all critical of the author's credentials, nor did they even seem to have read the paper yet, which was quite flawed. Mallen Baker's latest video goes into that a little bit. Mallen Baker is IMHO a very good adjudicator of facts.

I have a lot of respect for Bret and Heather and I think what they are doing is important. But it is also easy to be confused by them and to "follow" their beliefs as if they were clearly correct, when they are actually quite speculative beliefs.

All that being said, everyone communicates on social media now and scientists need to communicate just like the rest of us. If YouTube doesn't want to be the conduit for open communications, some other platform will be.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#53

Post by ALittleLight »

rektide wrote: post #39
Jimmc414 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was I rude? The assertion, "One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience" is absolutely false and not at all representative of their channel content. I think the burden of proof lies on the one making the false assertion. Also my comment was also after this topic was flagged and taken down. I find that extremely rude and intellectually dishonest.

> I think the burden of proof lies on the one making the false assertion. In an open democratic society everyone is responsible for surfacing the truth as they see it. Then we all decide indepedently what is a true or false assertion based off the evidence given. Your job here is much easier: cite anything. Their job is much harder: they have to make an assertion about the entire episode. You should try to provide so…

There is seemingly a lot of evidence for Ivermectin. I agree with you that people making a claim should provide evidence for it - but people asking for evidence shouldn't just assume there is none. It's like if I said I don't trust the vaccines because I don't trust one guy's anecdote about using the vaccines and not getting sick. That's not what vaccine-advocates are basing their argument on.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#54

Post by ALittleLight »

LatteLazy wrote: post #33

I heard his name over the Evergreen thing but forgot it. I listened to the episode "Doing science in an emergency" [0]. It's terrible. Lots of circular logic and self congratulation. It reminded me of reddit's "IAmVerySmart" sub. I don't think anyone should be banned (he hasn't been), but this isn't a hill for anyone to die on. He seems to have fallen into a weird rabbit-hole where he fails to admit any possibility o…

I downvoted you because it seems like your comment is largely composed of empty insults ("it's terrible", "reminded me of reddit's 'IAmVerySmart' sub", "weird rabbit-hole"). You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic). You say he fails to admit any possibility of error whereas I know that he readily admits the possibility of error.

There are also a few cases where your comment is misleading. You write that he isn't being banned, neglecting that his videos are being removed, his channel getting strikes, and his channel getting demonetized. YouTube is clearly censoring and suppressing his content and he is clearly on track to get banned. You say that some people have been made very sick ODing on Ivermectin, which is true, but only when they take massive amounts and is also true of the vast majority of drugs. Taking massive overdoses of anything is ill-advised. You write, again without explaining, that Ivermectin is a "very poor candidate as a treatment" - which is an odd claim to make given that Ivermectin is cheap, safe, and has at least some experimental data suggesting it may have uses. And, also, Ivermectin is being used in Latin America and India as a treatment currently. To sum that up as "a very poor candidate" strikes me as disingenuous.

Hope this help clarifies why at least one person is downvoting you.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#55

Post by Teever »

pwinnski wrote: post #37
Jimmc414 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens.

This statement, "You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens," is anti-scientific. I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's description in _The Demon-Haunted World_ of people who make profoundly unscientific statements using the words of science, because they want the authority and respect accorded those words, not realizing that the authority and respect comes from the methods of science, not just the wo…

I'm curious if you believe that only scientists can practice science.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#57

Post by zepto »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #29
doesnotexist wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me old fashioned but I don't source my medical evidence from two creators on youtube.

As I already stated, Bret and Heather both have PhD's in biology and the episode in question with Dr. Kory also featured Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. You are misrepresenting the content.

I’m curious about their motive for misrepresenting the content - I agree that they are, but it’s not obvious what the angle is for a commenter here.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#58

Post by perl4ever »

ALittleLight wrote: post #54
LatteLazy wrote: post #33

I heard his name over the Evergreen thing but forgot it. I listened to the episode "Doing science in an emergency" [0]. It's terrible. Lots of circular logic and self congratulation. It reminded me of reddit's "IAmVerySmart" sub. I don't think anyone should be banned (he hasn't been), but this isn't a hill for anyone to die on. He seems to have fallen into a weird rabbit-hole where he fails to admit any possibility o…

I downvoted you because it seems like your comment is largely composed of empty insults ("it's terrible", "reminded me of reddit's 'IAmVerySmart' sub", "weird rabbit-hole"). You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic). You say he fails to admit any possibility of error whereas I know that he readily admits the possibility of error. There are also a few cases where your comment is…

>You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic)

They linked to the Wikipedia page. Which appears to say that the effect found "in vitro" is unobtainable unless you take a massive OD.

Useful drugs have an OD amount that is greater than the effective dose.

https://xkcd.com/1217/

Supposedly larger scale tests are being done, so we'll see.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#59

Post by ALittleLight »

perl4ever wrote: post #58
ALittleLight wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because it seems like your comment is largely composed of empty insults ("it's terrible", "reminded me of reddit's 'IAmVerySmart' sub", "weird rabbit-hole"). You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic). You say he fails to admit any possibility of error whereas I know that he readily admits the possibility of error. There are also a few cases where your comment is…

>You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic) They linked to the Wikipedia page. Which appears to say that the effect found "in vitro" is unobtainable unless you take a massive OD. Useful drugs have an OD amount that is greater than the effective dose. https://xkcd.com/1217/ Supposedly larger scale tests are being done, so we'll see.

The idea is to take Ivermectin as a prophylactic. Weinstein is not suggesting taking a massive overdose of Ivermectin. He makes this clarification repeatedly.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#60

Post by rayiner »

I guess I should be glad that Internet censorship went from “it will only be flat earth and Holocaust denial” to Hays Code so fast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code) that the problematic nature of this is impossible to deny.
Post reply on HN