YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

An easy example is that if YouTube chooses delete David Icke's account instead of just demonetizing him, why are they only demonetizing anti-vax accounts but not deleting them? Surely the anti-vax movement has harmed more people than David Icke. Any cynic would notice that David Icke's supporters are crazy but far-right politically, while the anti-vax supporters are crazy but far-left politically. This is a bad look and lets the far-right crazies play the victim card.

A consistently applied and principled set of policies would either let both sets of crazies have their voice, or neither of them. Letting them both have their voice would let YouTube claim to be more of a "pipe" and not have to spend as much effort moderating their content. Censoring both sides obviously takes more effort but is at least defensible. What they have right now is that they spend effort moderating content, but still take flak for it because it looks like they are picking and choosing based on the political winds (which is great when it's your side winning, but the winds can change direction at a moment's notice).

If a lawyer, doctor, accountant, engineer, or any professional gives you bad or malicious advice, they expose themselves to liability for the results of it. If you want to present yourself as an expert on some topic and expect people to listen to you, put some skin in the game and stand behind what you say. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be advising people on anything.

I don't believe you're referring to the same statement as the prior person. In the case that you are, that statement is very precise, very correct, and ultimately uninteresting if you're wondering how dangerous COVID is. It's observational (and has minimal uncertainty) as opposed to trying to understand the actual case fatality rate.

> The point is that it is obvious that a pandemic is prevented by restricting all travel.

Yes, if you do so before the thing spreads. If you can't, then no, localized bans aren't really useful. By the time, for example, Trump, was considering a ban on all travel from China, it wouldn't have helped. I'm not sure what the point of linking to a random youtube channel is.

> The point is it was an outright lie which decreased trust in the institution as someone at the NYT also noted. Arguably, a much better lie would have been that DIY masks are just as effective as professional masks.

It's not though. Cite me a paper that shows that cloth masks prevent the spread of corona. The best you'll find is a paper that Zeynep Tufecki (whose tweet you cited), a literature professor at UNC Chapel Hill, coauthored, that concludes that Cloth masks and handwashing limit the spread of COVID-19.

So here's the chain of reasoning:

1. that there is no reliable data that shows that cloth masks are helpful

2. there is data that shows that misuse of cloth masks can be harmful

3. Therefore, we should be cautious and perhaps not recommend cloth masks

Which of those three statements do you feel the WHO got wrong? Please give cited evidence for your disagreement.

Thank god for free speech which allows people to burst bubbles.

> but the best protection is not free speech and studies have shown cognitive bias enables people to effectively ignore what disrupts their beliefs.

I know, that's why free speech is important. If people are shown to be cognitively biased, then censorship is the worst thing for society since it keeps people in their bias. Yes, people can ignore whatever they want. It's life. How is censorship an answer here?

> And very likely you yourself are also affected, in this case by your very belief in free speech.

My belief in free speech comes from getting an education and actually thinking about it.

> You hold it so intimately that it has become a core of your own self.

Oh god. This is so obvious and pathetic projecting.

Using your logic, you should be against censorship as it fosters cognitive biases and enables people to live in their bubbles. Without free speech, abolition movement, civil rights movement, lgbt movement, etc can't happen. Without free speech, countries and cultures can't discuss ideas and progress.

Once again, ask yourself why nazi germany, soviet union, north korea, etc love censorship? And ask yourself why you love censorship. It's for the same exact reason. Control and wanting to protect your bubble.

The difference between you and me is that I don't mind my bubble being challenged or bursted. My bubble didn't become a "core of myself". But you, obviously have an agenda and beliefs that you don't want challenged and you want to hold onto your pathetic bubble as long as you can.

You want people think exactly like you, believe things that you believe in and don't want anything challenging it. Just like nazi germany, islamic extremists, communist china, etc.

Also he believes that British Royal Family are shape shifting reptiles; he might not have the best judgement on what is backed by evidence.