771–780 of 933 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regularily see shady ads as well. This is the actual outrage IMO. Before going off and create a corporate censorship network, they should at least apply some "standars" to what they let through on the ad side. But I guess it is all too late. The Circle proofs to be a pretty prophetic book.
I subscribe to Youtube Premium. It's handy if you use Youtube a lot and dislike ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their actual message is exactly what you should want and expect from a science based organisation: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳. There is nothing false or misleading, and they updated the public as new information came to light. I can't emphasis enough h…
The Taiwanese CDC shared evidence in December that strongly suggested human-to-human transmission[1]. The WHO chose not to share this communication and went further by publishing the above tweet which suggested the exact opposite. Their co-lead on COVID-19 even went so far as to hang up on a journalist[2] who asked about Taiwan. If this is your idea of "correct behaviour" for a scientific org, I cringe to imagine you…
Your link says (about the Dec 31 email): "Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease. However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission."
That's no different to what China or the WHO were saying in this timeframe. The constant "no confirmed human transmission" were because everyone was watching for it.
Again, there is no evidence China hid anything here, and Taiwan doesn't say anything different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regularily see shady ads as well. This is the actual outrage IMO. Before going off and create a corporate censorship network, they should at least apply some "standars" to what they let through on the ad side. But I guess it is all too late. The Circle proofs to be a pretty prophetic book.
I never see ads on YouTube. I think my ad blocker is sufficiently good at blocking them for me. You deserve better then to be shown ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean in January 2020? They were talking about it a lot then: they had daily situation reports on the WHO website. I know because I was reading them!
No January 2019. As a reply to the WHO revising their opinion on human-to-human transmission commment above. I read the situation reports a lot as well, I guess I'll start doing so again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, those people. As I said, they get tripped from time-to-time, but they modify their process when it happens. In that case, they had multiple intelligence agency sources feeding them the same bad data, so their cross-checks failed. They've down-sampled the reliability of those sources in subsequent years.
Everything about your response screams "naivete". The NYTimes role in society is packaging official narratives for mass consumption. Their MO is mindlessly repeating whatever the IC tells them. This is not a new concept [1]. [1] https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/orwells-proposed-introduc...
I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free sp…
Democracy functions with an educated electorate. If you're saying that YouTube has to act as gatekeeper ban non-libellous, legal misinformation, you're passing a grim judgment on your fellow citizens which implies that the battle for the country is already lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has nothing to do with expanded hate speech laws, and the in fact the provincial human rights council in British Columbia ruled against the complainant in the article, and ordered her to pay restitution to the salons. I assume the GGP is referring to the C-16 bill passed by the federal government of Canada in 2016, which added gender expression and identity to existing human rights laws on discrimination. I have…
You’re right, I was confusing the two issues. But this article from the cbc with commentary from two legal experts isn’t completely reassuring: > Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun? >In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act. >“The misuse of gender pronouns…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your kid will be corrupted by society anyway. What's this whole thing about protecting children from the reality of the real world anyway? A bit off topic but a serious question. What's your logical reasoning for blocking the content now. It's just slowing down what he will be able to see (by deliberately going around you) within a couple years. I never understood this with parents.
You've never understood why parents protect children from things that they will eventually be exposed to as adults? If your goal is to give your children unfiltered access to "reality," parents are entirely unnecessary after birth.
Hey I have a different opinion than you. I think you should respect that rather than say parents are unnecessary after birth. That's rude.
First off think about it logically. Why indeed do parents have to protect children from things they will not only be exposed to as adults but things they will inevitably seek and successfully expose themselves to BEFORE they become adults.
Your job as a parent is to protect your kid from actual harm and to teach your kid and feed your kid and guide your kid. Your optional side job is to protect your kid from "reality" that's your own personal choice and there are actual scientific observations of the result.
The podcast below actually illustrates a scientific study on the subject:
https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/378577902/how-to-be...
A part of it actually follows two blind kids with different parents and different parenting choices.
One parent chose to protect his blind kid from reality.
The other parent gave the blind kid a bike for a birthday present two weeks after the crazy blind kid lost his two front teeth from running into a wall.
Do you want to know the end result of sheltering a blind kid versus encouraging one to explore reality? Watch the podcast to find out. Very interesting if your a parent. Let's just say one blind kid (now adult) now walks around the world as if he can see and literally uses echolocation to navigate the world. The other blind kid walks the world as if he's a crippled blind man.
Here's another one: https://www.npr.org/2015/01/16/377517810/world-with-no-fear
Also about kids. Talking about how kids today only wander around their homes while kids in the 60s and 70s wander around the whole town by themselves. It's attributed to different parenting styles and fear of exposing kids to the real world.
Parents in the 70s were much less fearful about protecting kids from reality. Parents today are scared of everything. But the illogical difference here is that from the 70s to now, crime has actually gone down. Your kids today are more safe than ever before but parents are more restrictive and scared than they ever were before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your kid will be corrupted by society anyway. What's this whole thing about protecting children from the reality of the real world anyway? A bit off topic but a serious question. What's your logical reasoning for blocking the content now. It's just slowing down what he will be able to see (by deliberately going around you) within a couple years. I never understood this with parents.
> Your kid will be corrupted by society anyway. What's this whole thing about protecting children from the reality of the real world anyway? > A bit off topic but a serious question. What's your logical reasoning for blocking the content now. It's just slowing down what he will be able to see (by deliberately going around you) within a couple years. I never understood this with parents. Children are not little adults…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting rid of the algorithms that actively distribute certain types of misinformation as widely as possible would probably mostly solve the issue while maintaining the broadest definition of “free speech.” But since that’s their entire business model, it’s unlikely to happen.
But then again you run into the problem of determining what is misinformation, vs e.g. counterpoints / arguments / critical thinking / devil's advocate videos. I for one am glad I'm not responsible for setting policies like that.
Not exactly, I just meant that they could largely solve the problem by ending the algorithms that massive boost distribution for "engaging" content.