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

#591

Post by zimpenfish » Sun, May 24, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #579

zimpenfish wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google/Youtube took down any videos where the name of the supposed whistleblower were being mentioned Presumably because they didn't want to be exposed to the legal ramifications of broadcasting a crime?

Broadcasting a crime is illegal?

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/08/politics/legal-question-o...

> According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the disclosure of a whistleblower's name could be a criminal offense if it is intentional, unauthorized and "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's foreign intelligence relationship to the United States."

But as many pages about the Whistleblower Act will tell you, this kind of thing is uncharted territory and presumably the exact kind of uncharted territory that gives expensive lawyers for large media companies extreme willies.

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

#592

Post by Zak » Sun, May 24, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #590

Zak wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently, platform immunity means the platform can't be sued or criminally charged because a user hosts something for which the user can be. The proposed change would expose the operator of an editorial algorithm to liability for the algorithm recommending things that are already illegal. I don't think the concern with rolling back platform immunity is government restrictions on free speech, exactly. In the US, the…

Right, but the "platform immunity" thing applies equally to all platforms. You're instead proposing to extend immunity to some platforms and not others based on how they choose to recommend things. If you (like I do) believe that recommendation is a form of speech, this creates government favored classes of speech. To word it differently: "Platforms that recommend/aggregate speech in government sanctioned ways are pr…

The law already does something like that. If I run the hypothetical blog host conspiracy-blogs.com, and I manually select ten posts I like to put on the front page every day, I can be prosecuted if I select a post for that saying something like:

Tomorrow at 10 AM, join me on the steps of the capitol. Bring your gun and a sign that says "we will shoot you unless you vote no on bill 123.".

The action described is a crime, soliciting others to participate in it is a crime, and my deliberate choice to show it to a larger audience is likely enough to subject me to accomplice liability that virtually any criminal lawyer would recommend against it. If violence actually occurred, there would be an ever lower bar for the victims to clear to sue me. Planning crimes is unambiguously not protected speech.

The proposal described would subject any sufficiently editorial algorithm to similar liability.

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

#593

Post by AbrahamParangi » Mon, May 25, 2020, 7:47 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #585

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is true in the long run, any more than genes which favor their propagation are bad in the long run. In the short term, viruses, cancers, shitty memes, doomsday cults and other low-sophistication replicators are favored. But long term you get things like multicellularity, complex nervous systems, the scientific method, civilization and art. The road may be rocky but I see no reason for it to be any…

It's "bad" for us as individuals with our cultural background. It's not necessarily "bad" for the memes themselves, especially since the ultimate score in this game is to have an entire civilization proactively spreading the meme to others. Christianity, Islam, and other proselytizing religions are a good example.

I suspect that the old, successful memes are good for their hosts by many definitions of good.

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

#594

Post by octygen » Mon, May 25, 2020, 1:31 PM UTC

exolymph wrote: post #203

octygen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends what the alternative medicine asks the patient to do. Anecdote: my mother was told to do coffee enemas in Tijuana to get rid of her colorectal cancer. She very seriously debated it with me.

Whose responsibility is that? Serious question.

The patient's, sadly. The one person whose problem-solving abilities are impaired. Quackwatch.org did help my mother decide things and move away from the treatments above.

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

#595

Post by michaelmrose » Fri, May 29, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #552

michaelmrose wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What ethical framework yields non insane results that isn't consequentialist/utilitarian?

Consequentialism also yields insane results. Look up "the repugnant conclusion". If ethics were settled, it would no longer be a philosophy but a science.

Thanks for that topic its very interesting. It will take some time to digest.

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

#596

Post by jexah » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #547

jexah wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In what context? Any episodic context, like 99 percent of the media we consume. TV show episodes happen in a specific order of events, movies are constructed of scenes in a specific order, community growth around a channel is built around common experiences already shared, even looking at history channels, if a story spans multiple videos requiring multiple media releases, when each video relies on information prov…

> Any episodic context, like 99 percent of the media we consume. But you're suggesting a single "timeline" for all content. So you get one stream of every show on every channel in order. That's not the usual way we watch episodic content. Hell since the invention of the VCR, we mostly just watch the specific stuff we want, not everything in I ur bundle. You seem to be conflicting the content made by a single entity w…

I want to experience media in the format and order in which the creator of the media wants it to be watched. The episodic content that I watch, I watch because I have faith in the creators of it that the next one will be of the same calibre as the previous. Not faith in the publishers. 99% of the time, this is in the order or is released. There are exceptions, which is why we have the concept of creator-defined playlists. To present the content to the user in an order which is not defined by the creator is at the publisher's discretion, and the publisher should therefore take responsibility for presenting it that way.

WRT conflating aggregators and creators, any decision the publisher makes, they should take responsibility for, such as promoting some content and hiding others.