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

YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 933 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#791

Post by nradov »

neilv wrote: post #749
nineplay wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to watch a political video. I have crap popping up all the time, "Watch this professor get destroyed by !" I know youtube is a shithole and yet it still surprises me. My son's favorite kid's show is only on YouTube so I created a new account, subscribed just to their channel and still inappropriate content shows up. How hard is this? I also can't block it for my daughter because she has school ass…

For curating videos for one's own children, if the catalog isn't changing too often, you might be able to `youtube-dl` the videos, and put the files on kids' devices or your home media device/appliance. I've been using `youtube-dl` successfully for lecture videos on my TV appliance (supposedly to watch while using the stationary bike). An example command line is in a script that grabs the videos from a conference: ht…

That doesn't work. My kids are literally being assigned to watch specific YouTube videos on their Chromebooks and then answer questions as part of the ridiculous "distance learning" nonsense that the school district came up with. I can't review and approve each video. And downloaded videos won't be available on Chromebooks.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#792

Post by amanaplanacanal »

umvi wrote: post #725
CyberDildonics wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube and facebook refusing to host something is not a slippery slope to something being completely censored. Anyone can rent a server in pretty much any country. Saying the biggest companies in the world not hosting you is the same as being completely censored is like saying you will die of thirst if you aren't allowed to drink coke.

> like saying you will die of thirst if you aren't allowed to drink coke. I will die of thirst though if every source of water has a megacorp in the supply chain that can cut me off from it. Imagine a world where your tap water is ultimately sourced from Dasani. And imagine Dasani can cut off my water if I say bad things they don't like. That is the world we live in: s/tap water/information/g, s/Dasani/tech megacorps…

Internet service providers should be common carriers. If they were, your whole argument falls apart. And that is what we should be fighting for. It would be the easiest to do, with the least odds of bad side effects.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#793

Post by DenisM »

gundmc wrote: post #671
nur0n wrote: post #65

This primary source provides better details on YouTube's policy: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en . It includes concrete examples of content that is banned under this policy.

These seem totally reasonable given the circumstances. I wish people would read these specific examples instead of jumping immediately to accusations of widespread censorship and accusing Youtube of being arbiters of disputed science.

>Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO's guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19

How about this? Can reasonable people disagree about distancing and isolation measures?

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#794

Post by ardy42 »

Karunamon wrote: post #639
jackhack wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Almost free speech is censorship by another name. Working "pretty well?" Sure, unless one tries to talk about things that really matter and strays outside the dotted lines of permissibility. Some topics are verboten. When you say "other side of the ocean," I assume you're talking about Europe. Try to discuss the muslim rape gangs in the UK. Try to discuss the surge in grenade attacks and many-fold increase…

Indeed. There's a Chomsky quote that fits here: The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on t…

> Indeed. There's a Chomsky quote that fits here:

>> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

That sounds bad, but I wonder how Chomsky would feel if that wasn't the case and the "spectrum of acceptable opinion" included stuff like literal Nazism.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#795

Post by bergstromm466 »

scoutt wrote: post #456
bergstromm466 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social media is currently poisoning our country Does this really come close to diagnosing the root problem? I am frustrated when I see this argument. ”Intellectual property is the oil of the 21 century. Look at the richest men a hundred years ago; they all made their money extracting natural resources or moving them around. All today's richest men have made their money out of intellectual property.” — Mark Getty Th…

While I agree that social media is not the root problem, I cannot grasp why a disquisition about Intellectual Property could help us to understand what is going on.

Ok I'll take the bait.

What do you see? What's high(er) on the priority list for you?

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#796

Post by amanaplanacanal »

gadders wrote: post #378
owlbynight wrote: post #174

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…

Once you give people the power to censor things, you can't assume that the people with that power will act in good faith forever, even if they do currently. Would you want to give that power to your political opponents? If not it's better than nobody have that power.

Someone always has and always will have that power though. I would rather the owner of the platform than the government have that power.

Think about this: would you rather have the power to decide what speech you allow in your house, or would you rather the government decide for you? Because those are really your choices.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#797

Post by lerptime »

nineplay wrote: post #784
nendroid wrote: post #756

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.

I'll point up to the original topic. Do you think it's a good idea to let a young child watch anti-vaccine videos? What about political videos which claim that 'the other' side supports killing babies? Young kids don't yet have the context to understand lying and propaganda, and it's not clear when they'd have the mental maturity to understand it. More specifically, I was raised in a generation where adults didn't wo…

I would explain the content to them. Explain all the different sides and my personal views on it as well as direct him to content with opposing views. Then I would let him form his own opinion.

My job as a parent is to help him understand. Not to build a bubble.

As for violent content I would tell my kid to just watch out for that and that the content is unpleasant. It's his choice whether he wants to see it. Usually at that age adult content or violent content is uninteresting or unpleasant so kids tend to avoid it anyway.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#798

Post by AlchemistCamp »

nl wrote: post #772
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not defending WHOs treatment of Taiwan. I think that incident was atrocious. 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-…

I apologize if this is presumptuous of me, but I get the impression that you don't live here, haven't followed this topic in much detail and probably haven't read anything at all in local media from that time frame.

Here's more background:

Dr. Li Wenliang's email warning colleagues about the outbreak was sent on December 30th. Multiple Taiwanese doctors were working in Wuhan at that time. Taiwan's very early and very small outbreak was from people evacuated from Wuhan. The CDC warnings weren't about what was seen in the Covid positive evacuees in Taiwan. The warnings were based on direct experience in Wuhan and they did suggest human-to-human transmission.

There was no hard proof, but there was a great deal of circumstantial evidence. Yes, it's possible Taiwan's CDC was overly suspicious due to memories of how SARS was covered up in 2003. However, given the way epidemics spread, the wiser course is to take circumstantial evidence of transmission very seriously.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#799

Post by nprz »

nprz wrote: post #577
owlbynight wrote: post #174

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…

No no no, this is such bullshit. People wouldn't believe in these conspiracy theories if they weren't in a state of downward mobility. Look at the suicide rate in the US, especially for those without more than a high school education. Look at the increasing opiate addiction and overdoses. Is it any wonder malevolent conspiratorial thinking is increasing? It is unfortunate people are unable to correctly identify the a…

What I mean to say is conspiracy theories are a symptom and not the disease, silencing conspiracy theories does nothing to address the actual issue. The anger and discontentment of the working class caused by declining wages is what needs to be fixed.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#800

Post by triceratops »

brigandish wrote: post #175
triceratops wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact checking is hard and time-consuming but making up bullshit is easy. People love sharing contary-to-conventional-wisdom news and ideas that they come across, because it makes them feel smart. Given these two facts, it's far easier for lies to spread quicker than truth. How do you solve for this in your spherical cow model of free speech?

Why are you time limiting it, and why so arbitrarily? Which lies have persisted the longest, and were those lies supported by free speech or by censorship?

Real-world events such as elections, legislative votes, military ops, referenda, protests and gatherings are time-limited. The lie may have already had its desired effect by the time the truth comes out, if it ever does. Lies about, for example, the stab-in-the-back, tobacco and WMDs in Iraq got the liars what they wanted at the cost of millions of lives.

The truth may never become as widely known as the lie due to the frictions it encounters in spreading. People like to see news that confirms their own biases (me too), they like spreading news that's counter-intuitive or unusual, and they hate reading boring stuff (like fact-checks with a long list of citations). An interesting lie will spread quicker and wider, and be remembered for far longer, than the correction that just a few days later.

Overall this whole "free speech kills lies" idea sounds like religious dogma to me. It may be true in some cases, but it's taken as an immutable, universal article of faith and its proponents never feel the need to cite any actual evidence or address the horrific consequences of the edge cases. It's an idealistic image of how the world works, similar to a socialist utopia.

Free speech is crucial to liberty and progress, and the government must not regulate speech. But that should not apply to private platforms.

Post reply on HN