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

841–850 of 933 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#841

Post by cambalache »

confidantlake wrote: post #707
cambalache wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People think that because it was their honest hope/belief that technology would work to amplify ONLY the kind of information they like: Vote liberal, open the borders, affirmative action everywhere, include tech elites in decision making, heavier taxes for everyone above my income bracket, condemn every country who is not a western liberal democracy. When they realized that technology is amplifying EVERYBODY voices f…

Good points. I also hoped that the internet would make everyone smarter by allowing anyone to read physics papers and watch videos on how to build a pc. But we are social creatures, so here I am posting on a message board instead.

That Internet existed, until 1996 or so. It still exists somehow, but what % of the population at any given time do you expect will be reading Wittgenstein or Braudel, or looking forward to the next Witten's preprint? 10%, 5%, 1%? The scary thing is that now he have Fields Medal winners claiming that 2+2 could be 5 only to not appear as an asshole before the digital Robespierres.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#842

Post by theptip »

cwhiz wrote: post #735
theptip wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different from the outrage factories of the tabloid news? Is YouTube’s approach to extremist content different from a tabloid in any way other than efficiency/reach? Are we really complaining about a basic aspect of human psychology rather than a business innovation from these companies? If we smash YouTube, what about the tabloid press? How do we actually regulate this stuff in a consistent way? (And how…

I won't accidentally end up on some outrage tabloid news site if I start at AP News and start clicking articles. There is nothing wrong with outrage tabloid news existing, but it shouldn't be something that I accidentally happen upon while browsing normal news. YouTube will just send you to extremist crap if you keep watching suggested videos long enough.

Fair. Is this qualitatively or just quantitatively different from discovery in previous generations; flicking through the channels you see Fox when you normally choose MSNBC. Or flicking through the newspapers on the rack you see USA Today on your way to picking up NYTimes.

I think part of it at least is that you simply get recommended way more things now than then; the shocking recommendations are the only ones we remember.

I do also agree that there is some sort of feedback loop going on here that wasn’t happening as strongly before, and I have a vague hunch that bots / astroturfers may be amplifying these feedback loops in ways that didn’t apply to previous generations.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#843

Post by anigbrowl »

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?

Why are you time limiting it

Because time matters. Look at elections (where there are huge incentives to exploit the fixed timescale), or look at fraudulent operations like pyramid schemes - eventually they get exposed, but if the originators are sufficiently disciplined to cash out and bail before that they may reap handsome profits. The incentives to spread false information are a function of the profits that can be obtained from doing so before the next decision cycle.

As a parallel example, look at the way the clock influences strategies in professional sports, with teams using timeouts and deliberate fouls to game the outcome of a match. At that point they're not playing ball, but rather a meta-game about time management. It's one reason I like baseball; the game runs for a defined number of plays (9 innings, each of which runs until 3 batters have been struck out), so while games can run very long, that sort of metagame doesn't really exist.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#844

Post by javajosh »

ketzo wrote: post #758
javajosh wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for saying this. It takes the discussion in a different, but I think more useful, direction. Suffering is caused when you believe something that isn't true, and the rational idealists don't want to accept "it's natural for people to believe in lies", as you say. (There is a juicy irony here, which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.) The key innovation we require, as a society, are better feedback m…

I definitely agree on the cancel culture aspect. I'm just out of college, and for people my age and younger, there is such a desperate and helpless anger towards the people in power. There is absolutely nothing concrete that I can do on a day-to-day basis to protect my world, my friends, my family from people that I watch lie, cheat, and steal on national television. It's absolutely sickening. I vote, and I canvass,…

I'm 20 years out of college, and I feel the same way. At my best, I remember to scale my energy according to proximity: things nearer to me get more energy. Part of the problem is that we're presented with a parade of information about stuff that isn't happening here, around me. That, coupled with the aching feeling that you're a bad person if you don't pay attention to what's happening in the world, even its far away. That is really sick, because it's guilting you into paying attention to stuff you cannot, by definition, control.

And then we, the techno-futurists, don't want to deal with what's in front of us because its too small, doesn't scale, or because this problem will go away once we reach the economic Singularity or have flying cars or whatever utopian dream is in fashion.

Personally, I think we need better systems to leverage people's real, concrete pain into actionable change. Like, you should be able to donate money or time to fixing the things that really hurt you. Maybe its the DMV. Or maybe its traffic court. Or maybe its a late fee on a credit card. Or maybe its finding out that a fact you believed was made up. Right now, everything is so siloed. Imagine if everyone hurt by the DMV could pledge money to fix the problem.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#845

Post by lerptime »

nineplay wrote: post #838
nendroid wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists can't prove anything. They can only make statistical correlations and establish causation to a degree. When I use the word "prove" i don't mean like proving things in math. Nobody means this, it's obvious to everyone what they mean. Prove in this context means well established. For example if I say scientists have proved the theory of gravity. What's going on here is extreme pedantry. Prove has meaning in…

I am not trying to be pedantic. There are many contexts in which 'prove' might be a reasonable term colloquially. However you are referring to a social science when you talk about differences between kids of different generations. I think using 'proved' in that context puts you on pretty shakey ground.

Scientists can't prove anything. They can only make statistical correlations and establish causation to a degree.

What this means is that whenever you use the word "prove" with "science" it is colloquial. It is always colloquial.

The statistical methods used in social sciences are no different than the statistical methods used to "prove" things in physics.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#846

Post by rmrfstar »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #775
rmrfstar wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If this were true, Trump wouldn’t have so much trouble with them.

Them is the IC right?

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#847

Post by amanaplanacanal »

rmrfstar wrote: post #846
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were true, Trump wouldn’t have so much trouble with them.

Them is the IC right?

Not sure who the IC is, but I thought we were talking about the New York Times.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#848

Post by exolymph »

shawnz wrote: post #648
Mattasher wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put another way, almost free speech works great for those with power, and badly for everyone else. When people advocate censorship of any kind, they're really saying, "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it."

> "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it." If the establishment's views are strongly codified and checks and balances are in place to maintain them, is that so bad?

Yes, because you don't know what you don't know, and you won't find out if you don't allow dissent.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#849

Post by shawnz »

exolymph wrote: post #848
shawnz wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it." If the establishment's views are strongly codified and checks and balances are in place to maintain them, is that so bad?

Yes, because you don't know what you don't know, and you won't find out if you don't allow dissent.

"Almost free speech" doesn't necessarily mean dissent isn't allowed

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#850

Post by nl »

hef19898 wrote: post #802
nl wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no Covid in Jan 2019(??) I have no idea what you are arguing.

Regarding the GP, attacking the WHO for changing their minds regarding human to human transmission as he found a statement dating before the one you shared. Doing that would also allow you to attack the WHO for not talking about COVID-19 before it struck, same logic and just as wrong.

Oh, so you are agreeing with me?

Ok then!

Post reply on HN