YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

Post by posterboy » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 10:59 AM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #514

stcredzero wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say." Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many…

This is how all news media operated before the internet created mouthpieces for non-professionals. In addition to suppressing some inconvenient truths they filtered out crackpot ideas that have become a plague in modern times.

Post by moosey » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 11:07 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #162

I guess if this were the 1500s YouTube would only have us post videos that confirm that witches and heretics should be burned at the stake. Maybe it would be okay to talk about a few more crusades. Mankind improves because systems become big, rigid, and unable to evolve. People come along and point that out, suggesting various theories about how those systems got that way, the reasons why they are wrong, and offering…

Post by dependenttypes » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 11:13 AM UTC

immutate wrote: post #771

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would you support banning everyone on YouTube who went against WHO’s tweet[1] saying there’s no evidence of human to human transmission? That was only in January. https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/who-haunted-by-old-tweet-sayin...

First of all, this is about “YouTube banning 'medically unsubstantiated' content.” as well as content that “would go against World Health Organization recommendations,” which (if those guidelines are followed) doesn’t mean banning of people or discourse, but rather disinformation. Secondly, the WHO tweeted that, but had actually already acknowledged human-to-human transmission multiple times[1][2] in the days before…

Post by dependenttypes » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 11:14 AM UTC

ZenPsycho wrote: post #600

ZenPsycho wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, how many deaths are you willing to be responsible for? make sure to scale it up to youtube size.

Really disappointed in hacker news today. Children all of you, crying for the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

Post by asdkjh345fd » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 11:17 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #738

roenxi wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people would like freedom to discuss the coronavirus without being oppressed. They can't on YouTube if this policy takes hold. The sort of people who contradict the WHO happened to be right on this one; they predicted a problem early and tended to pre-empt the WHO on upcoming problems. This was also expected , because the WHO only advises stuff that is already obvious to everyone. Interested parties can offer be…

> This policy will be aimed at exactly people like him. He has been contradicting the authorities all the way. What advice has he given that contradicts the WHO's guidance?