Google needs to be broken up.
Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
721–730 of 803 posts
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#722Earlier quoted context omitted.
Herd immunity is not a direct goal of vaccination, protection of the individual being vaccinated is. If someone needs protection, then they should get vaccinated!
Then why did we ask small kids to be vaccinated for COVID when they had no serious risk of anything? Rhetorical question, of course.
On the contrary, for the overwhelming majority of children you're absolutely right, they didn't have serious risk from COVID-19, which makes your question a good one, not a rhetorical one.
Regardless, herd immunity was not a serious possibility at any point (given the high Rº and lack of a vaccine that could prevent transmission), which, considering this was known very early on makes your question, again, a good one not a rhetorical one, despite your intent.
Finally, regardless of herd immunity, at risk individuals would still require vaccination, which makes the herd immunity as a goal, again, irrelevant, which is where I started. It's a nice by-product.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#723Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Big Pharma would benefit from everyone taking ivermectin to cure their covid, yet content about that was removed. Google is bigger than the entire Pharma industry, and only a couple Pharma companies had covid vaccines. There's also a ton of general anti-pharma content on YouTube that they'd get taken down, demonetized, etc if they had any power over YouTube.
> Big Pharma would benefit from everyone taking ivermectin
I don't follow. Why would Big pharma benefit from everyone taking ivermectin since its off patent and ultra cheap?
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#724Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. A family member of mine had a helpful amount of income coming in from a channel of his that was gaining momentum. The point of the channel was to teach gun safety to people new to guns. Keep in mind that where we live, all of this is 100% legal and even encouraged, yet, YouTube threw so many ridiculous barriers in the way that he could not create much content That didn't end up getting removed. He eventually…
Guns are not safe. No matter what you do, accidents will happen. I don’t think Youtube is the place to look for education, and neither does youtube apparently. It’d be pretty bad if someone watched youtube videos and thought they could handle guns safely and ended up hurt. That doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me.
> Guns are not safe. No matter what you do, accidents will happen.
By that reasoning, nothing is safe. Not a useful statement.
Guns are certainly safer than e.g. cars - you control everything about your gun, but have no control over the environment you drive in.
> I don’t think Youtube is the place to look for education, and neither does youtube apparently.
Then you're horribly wrong of course. Youtube just hosts videos, which are a medium like any other. There's no reason why some piece of information couldn't be encoded in a video instead of in a book.
> It’d be pretty bad if someone watched youtube videos and thought they could handle guns safely and ended up hurt.
This is different from learning from literally any other source how?
It's worth mentioning that gun safety rules are super simple and obviously correct, so there's nothing to get wrong anyways:
#1 Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
#2 Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy.
#3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
#4 Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.
There's more to it of course, but these go a long way.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#725Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really quite simple, and we don't even require proof, just logic. It's plainly true that less masking, less isolation, and less vaccination leads to increased risk of death or injury to Covid. Therefore, having more content promoting those things must lead to increased risk of death or injury to Covid. We really don't need to over-intellectualize these things. Saying things that are just not true, which increase…
> It's plainly true that less masking, less isolation, and less vaccination leads to increased risk of death or injury to Covid. When you say this is plainly true, how do you back that up exactly? I am unaware of any control tests that would prove out those claims with high certainty. Our vaccine tests done during the pandemic also not focused on risk of death or injury, they were focused on the frequency of particip…
> When you say this is plainly true, how do you back that up exactly? I am unaware of any control tests that would prove out those claims with high certainty.
Well... they exist. All the covid vaccines were tried against placebo, and I mean true placebo as in saline. But even if you're distrustful of that it's just common sense.
I don't want to get the flu. Okay, the less people I'm around the lower the chance I have of getting the flu.
When I was immunocompromised during cancer treatment I greatly limited the amount of people I'm in contact with because that obviously lowers your risk of contracting an illness.
Again it's just not... rocket science.
If I say "you don't need to wear seat belts" and then that results in a bunch of people not wearing seat belts, then there's gonna be a lot more brains on the interstate.
Well... we know seat belts are effective. We know isolation is effective. We know vaccines are effective. So put two and two together. After a certain point it feels like being contrarian for the sake of it.
And, as an aside, most people are truly unbelievably bad at risk-assessment. People can't get it to click in their head that doing risky thing doesn't mean bad things will happen to them.
You can party, ignore all the vaccines, have people spit in your mouth, whatever - and be perfectly fine. Everything in life is risk analysis. I'm not saying that not getting a vaccine or not following guidelines will kill you. But it will increase your risk.
But you, your family, hell, everyone you know, might be perfectly fine. Or they might end up like that guy I knew in highschool who died at 20 MPH because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. It's all risk analysis.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#726Earlier quoted context omitted.
LTT is only popular because of youtube in the first place and kind of bad at what they do. I've seen lots of bad methodology and low value content so added them to my "don't recommend" list years ago. More on topic, Floatplane doesn't fix any of the problems with youtube, it's just another take on it that they're filling up with more clickbait thumbnails.
They literally have their own testing lab for hardware tests. The regular lighter content brings in the money though, tech deep dives aren't exactly audience magnets.
I have had various ways of testing things over the years, too, and like I said, they're not doing a good job. They don't employ experts, they just project expertise to an uninformed audience.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#727Earlier quoted context omitted.
Novavax COVID-19 vaccine never targeted specifically the spike protein, and instead focused on boosting the creation of various different antibodies. It is also the least effective. The current breed of mRNA vaccines targets the spike protein, and the TRIM21 gene. Some of them also attack the S protein directly. All of them work to boost various antibodies. The "targets" are in addition. By targeting the spike protei…
Novavax's vaccine was also spike-protein-only, the difference between theirs and the mRNA ones was they created it artificially in moths then extracted it for the vaccine instead of generating inside the human body.
No, it was a vector vaccine.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#728Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, ok. Everything is connected to everything else, true enough. That seems a bit vague. Do you have a specific example to illustrate what you are talking about? Because the 'disinformation' that I saw being banned was typically people with PhDs in vaguely related fields talking about scientific papers. Disagreeing with them seems like a fair play, deplatforming them seems actually damaging. If I can't listen to…
The disinformation I saw turned into accidental deaths. By attempting to treate the virus with alcohol, horse tranquilisers, and more. And those deaths are verified. People weren't listening to PhDs getting banned. They were listening to influencers get banned.
So are you talking about your neighbours and relatives here? Like someone next door tried feeding someone else alcohol when their spouse got COVID? What actually happened?
> People weren't listening to PhDs getting banned. They were listening to influencers get banned.
I'm a people, you know.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#729Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be glib, but yes, that's what Public Order Offences are . Society and law exists so that we can co-exist, and people going out of their way to be offensive and provocative by, say, setting things on fire in a public space and saying hateful things... yeah, that's eminently antisocial. If you want to frame this as criminality coming from mere knowledge, you can do that, but you're obscuring context... you're li…
Offense is taken, not given. Unless it's harassment or assault (both forms of violence) then the response to speech should always be either speech in return, or to ignore it, not to use violence - either through the state's monopoly, in this case via the police, or through vigilante action. To say using one's freedom of conscience and freedom of expression is beyond the childish "cringe", it's illiberal, dogmatic, an…
This kind of purist ideology is fine in a perfect world, but the reality is that peaceful co-existence requires intolerance of intolerance. And let's be honest here, you do agree with limiting speech: you just mentioned speech being used as "harassment" and "assault". Would you mind explaining how speech could be harassment and assault and who would decide that? And I'm presuming that you're okay with libel and slander being decided in a Court of Law and enforceable through other institutions of State?
We're not really discussing here whether limiting speech is okay, we're both already doing it. No, it's about where we draw the line. It's just where I put the line also protects vulnerable people from extremely dangerous rhetoric that kills people.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#730Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them. Subscribe to Premium, and the Google ads are gone. I think it's only fair, given how vast and complex YouTube is as a service.
Subscribe to Premium and pay ever-increasing prices [1][2][3] so that Google can track you better with you always being logged into an account with payment information attached. While still being exposed to ads for VPNs, cryptocurrency, scams [4], and more. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626035 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807803 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33279998 [4]: http…
Yes, subscribe to Premium, and pay the reasonable price for the use of a service. Tracking? There is hardly any service that doesn't track its own usage. And whatever VPNs, crypto and scams the content creators peddle is up to the viewer. I barely get VPNs, and no crypto and no scams.