Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

bbc.com

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#951
post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes Dr. Li contracted the virus on January 8 when he returned to the hospital in Wuhan where the first patients were identified in December 2019. Dr. Li made social media posts about the virus which Chinese authorities forced him to take down and sign a written confession and promise not to do it again. Now the question is do you have a source that shows the exact steps, if any, the WHO took to verify the “preliminar…

This is a huge non sequitur from my question on "spread from human to human after it was _abundantly clear_ that it does" But I will respond to your goalpost shift as well in defense of Li Wenliang who's a celebrated individual in China but turned into a cartoon meme in the west. Li, an ophthalmologist, has no first hand knowledge of the virus nor was he trying to "whistleblow". He received a private group message wi…

You can’t answer the most basic questions:

-why did Chinese police get involved and force Dr. Li to remove social media posts about the virus and sick patients?

-who were the Chinese Authorities, by name, who represented their “preliminary investigation”

-what steps did WHO take to independently verify what they were told by Chinese Authorities about person to person transmission before posting this information to the public on Twitter?

Edit:

No offense but you seem like one of China’s paid trolls, throughout this thread you are accusing everyone who mentions facts of “moving the goal posts” and otherwise attacking “the West”. The West didn’t give the WHO knowingly false information and use their political power to have the WHO tweet the falsehoods to the public with #TheWest

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#952
post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying that racism and white supremacy is declining?

You think it’s increasing? Over what time frame? At least in North America, racism and white supremacy is a fraction of what it was 50 years ago.

But a lot worse than it was only four years ago.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes Dr. Li contracted the virus on January 8 when he returned to the hospital in Wuhan where the first patients were identified in December 2019. Dr. Li made social media posts about the virus which Chinese authorities forced him to take down and sign a written confession and promise not to do it again. Now the question is do you have a source that shows the exact steps, if any, the WHO took to verify the “preliminar…

'There is no clear evidence from the preliminary investigation' and 'the preliminary investigation finds that human-to-human transmission is not taking place' are two quite different propositions. The WHO opted for an excess of scientific caution - partly to avoid pissing off China, partly out of fears of being accused of alarmism, which have since been validated in spades. Now while I agree that WHO is a poor yardst…

> There is no clear evidence from the preliminary investigation' and 'the preliminary investigation finds that human-to-human transmission is not taking place' are two quite different propositions.

Everyone understands the difference.

>The WHO opted for an excess of scientific caution

No scientific caution would have been independently verifying China’s representations and throughly reviewing their claims before retweeting it to the public.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#954

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>including claims that covid does not spread from human to human. That's how you interpret 'no clear evidence from preliminary investigations' is it? Why bother attempting to twist the WHO's words? What does it get you?

Yes, that's how I interpret 'no clear evidence from preliminary investigations'. The relevant timeline: Li Wenliang (a doctor in Wuhan) blew the whistle on Dec 30. 4 days later he was harassed by the Chinese police for "spreading rumors". On Jan 8 Li Wenliang was infected. On Jan 12 he was put in the ICU. On Jan 14 WHO denied human-to-human transmission. Li unfortunately passed away in early February. And by the way,…

>Yes, that's how I interpret 'no clear evidence from preliminary investigations'.

If that is true, then you are just categorically not competent to be making interpretations of scientific statements. In a separate comment you cited a handful of sources that, on my reading you had clearly not interpreted accurately, and now you're advancing an argument that depends on a fallacy so obvious that would be dispensed with by a JV debate team.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#955

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'There is no clear evidence from the preliminary investigation' and 'the preliminary investigation finds that human-to-human transmission is not taking place' are two quite different propositions. The WHO opted for an excess of scientific caution - partly to avoid pissing off China, partly out of fears of being accused of alarmism, which have since been validated in spades. Now while I agree that WHO is a poor yardst…

> There is no clear evidence from the preliminary investigation' and 'the preliminary investigation finds that human-to-human transmission is not taking place' are two quite different propositions. Everyone understands the difference. >The WHO opted for an excess of scientific caution No scientific caution would have been independently verifying China’s representations and throughly reviewing their claims before retw…

>Everyone understands the difference.

Not accurate. The commenter that spawned this entire sub-thread claimed that 'no clear evidence' equated to 'does not spread.'

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly do you figure? Google has built a company around it deciding what information gets to be seen. They’ve done this for decades. Apple sells computer hardware. Even if Apple has recently started curating information, they still only curate a fraction of a percent of what Google does. Suggesting that Apple has historically been at fault here and that Google is now just joining them sounds incredibly biased.

Google has been pretty open to letting creators share. Apple is like a dictator decide who is allowed to share.

K but that isn’t the issue. The issue is Google choosing what information people get to know. They are the ones in the position of power to control that.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#957

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when am I beholden to the WHO? I don't remember voting for any of them or agreeing for them to represent me in any way. They are not my elected government, why should I give the slightest fuck what they tell me to do?

Since its establishment by treaty and your sovereign nation of origin becoming a signatory to said treaty. Surely you can make the same point about your skepticism of transnational organizations without all the emotional theatrics, perhaps by researching the topic you aver to care about and highlighting what you believe to be its constitutional inadequacies.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...

>Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner so that's what I was saying previously; the transition from movement restrictions and shut-downs

I believe unlawfully removing people from their homes and restricting their movement is against the constitutions of several countries, mine for sure. According to this transcript directly from the WHO, this is what they advocate and recommend. Speaking out against this falls under directly contradicting the WHO.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#958
post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> freedom to discuss the coronavirus Unfortunately platforms that reach billions must prioritize the danger of misinformation spreading that far and wide over allowing for every dangerous and wrong opinion. The complete and total censorship you fear never emerges, Youtube if anything is far too lenient on allowing terrible opinions to linger on their platform. They never do away with anything besides the most harmful…

The WHO are themselves spreading misinformation for political reasons.

They are making a calculation that a global run on masks would hurt efforts to contain spread due to shortages for medical professionals confronting the virus everyday, as opposed to general public confrontation which is more sporadic.

Should they just come out and say that? Probably. Would it be effective? No people are irrational in crisis and their words wouldn't prevent the above scenario.

They made a calculated choice with their language which is misleading, but necessarily so. You can disagree with it, but it's far from "spreading misinformation for political reasons".

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly qualifies someone to be a "professional" who is allowed to speak? The vast majority of content I watch on Youtube is produced by independent creators covering a variety of topics with much more detail, expertise, and truth than any mainstream program.

This statement is exactly the bollocks that got us here. Just because you have a social media account, or fucking "likes", does not qualify you to speak about pandemics, or vaccinations, or gravity, etc.

Then why dont you answer the question: what does qualify someone?

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#960
post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly qualifies someone to be a "professional" who is allowed to speak? The vast majority of content I watch on Youtube is produced by independent creators covering a variety of topics with much more detail, expertise, and truth than any mainstream program.

Mainstream is not professional.. just look at Fox news if you need convincing. that say that if you cannot make the difference between an professional (or informed) opinion, and some redneck with the deep belief that the Earth is flat then I cannot do anything for you

Mainstream news, by all standard definitions, is professional. Fox News is the same as CNN and all the other channels in between, with countless examples of misinformation and outright false stories by every station.

Nobody is asking you to do anything for them, in fact they're asking for the opposite; to let them decide for themselves. And most people can do that just fine. Just because some extremist views exist does not mean the majority believes in them.

Post reply on HN