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

YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by jonbutton »

logifail wrote: post #121

Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." [0] Where we live, due to local laws , we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( We keep trying to encourage our ki…

The WHO advice you are referring to is pertaining to medical masks (clearly stated in the section title of that page "When and how to wear medical masks to protect against coronavirus?")

Medical masks need to be used only if you have a proper reason to prevent the unavailability of stock to healthcare people.

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

#973

Post by gjs278 »

leoh wrote: post #473

I'm surprised at how upset people are about this. The amount of garbage on the internet now is immense. Invoking free speech, more and more of the internet has slowly become 4chan and I don't understand why more people aren't sick of it.

because they’re right. you want to censor anything that hurts your fragile feelings.

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

#974

Post by surfpel »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #128
ff10 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re on a slippery slope and don’t consider that this is an exceptional situation. The danger of losing civil liberties comes when the exception becomes the rule. AFAIK, no amendments have been violated since YouTube is a private entity. They can editorialize what they, how they want. It’s is their liberty to make a choice here, the same as your liberty to not support that choice.

since YouTube is a private entity That's a slippery slope right there, a very dangerous one. In the US, spaces where one engages in political activities have moved from public (town square in front of City Hall) to private (the mall plus parking lot). That's a problem. The other thing is monopolies. In the past, when you were on the fringes of the spectrum you'd publish with your fringe publisher and could at least g…

That’s not a slippery slope but your point further on is valid. The privatization of the town square carries the potential to erode our civil liberties as these new public centers aren’t held to the same standards. The question here is then how do we protect that.

Which freedoms do we give up here? Freedom of the individual or freedom of enterprise? Imo if a corporate entity decides to act like a public space, then it should be treated like one and held accountable as such. Otherwise we’ve created a simple way of bypassing some constitutional liberties.

That still however doesn’t answer the question as to where we draw the line for freedom of expression. Nazis took over once in the public sphere and they can do it again. I will argue against moral relativism here and say yes it’s ok to suppress nazis so long as we don’t turn that around and become needlessly oppressive in other ways.

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

#976

Post by Udik »

stcredzero wrote: post #270
logifail wrote: post #121

Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." [0] Where we live, due to local laws , we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( We keep trying to encourage our ki…

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…

To me a lot that's bad with Google's politics is epitomised by the move from "don't be evil" to "do the right thing". The first was a neutral stance: just abstain from behaving so as to cause harm; the second is an active position, where the company is encouraged to act in pursuit of whatever it thinks might be good. Thus mixing its role of technological medium with that of publisher and of political advocate.

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

#977

Post by Zenbit_UX »

eloff wrote: post #585
sjwright wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest risk vector for your free speech rights is to misunderstand them, falsely claim that they’re absolute and have your society collapse.

How does free speech lead to the collapse of society? I think you're making one heck of a leap there.

He's saying you're misunderstanding your rights regarding free speech, which sounds accurate as you seem to think you have rights on YouTube's platform. (You don't.)

Free speech only protects you from the government, there are many places that saying dumb or offensive things will get you kicked out or censored.

So yes I agree with OP, the fact that you don't understand these rights but sit at your desk and yell "but my free speech!" or "un-American!" when YouTube is trying to combat disinformation during a global health crisis could likely be a precursor to a collapse of your society. While it won't be a direct cause of the collapse, if an educated programmer on HN doesn't get it, I don't favor the prospects for the rest of the society.

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

#978

Post by eloff »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #977
eloff wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does free speech lead to the collapse of society? I think you're making one heck of a leap there.

He's saying you're misunderstanding your rights regarding free speech, which sounds accurate as you seem to think you have rights on YouTube's platform. (You don't.) Free speech only protects you from the government, there are many places that saying dumb or offensive things will get you kicked out or censored. So yes I agree with OP, the fact that you don't understand these rights but sit at your desk and yell "but…

I literally said you can't challenge YouTube on first amendment grounds, because it doesn't work that way. I'm not sure how that is me misunderstanding anything. More like you both misunderstood me.

What I'm saying is YouTube is a monopoly. So if you say something on there that they don't like, and they censor you, you've been effectively silenced. What other video platform will you use to get your message out? Whatever you choose you won't reach nearly as many people. Should Google have that kind of power? I don't think so. They should be regulated and the government (and by extension the people who vote for it) should make those decisions, not a corporation.

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

#979

Post by cle »

belorn wrote: post #849
cle wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t “qualified” and “unqualified”. It’s not that black-and-white, and I wish people would accept that more. Basically what we should be asking ourselves is “What’s the likelihood that what this person is telling me is correct?” which is much more useful, because it immediately puts the focus on what factors contribute to that. We aren’t going to conclude anything useful until we can agree that there are good…

It is not a given that there exists an optimal middle ground when it comes to central information control. Similar arguments have been done in regard to encryption controls where the arguments are in favor of backdoors, escrows, export control. But it has been mostly rejected that we need to find a optimal middle ground between giving government access to information and providing encryption for e-commerce depending…

> central information control is an evil whose time has come.

It depends on the context. If your city is being invaded by a civilian-slaughtering army, I doubt many of the civilians would refer to a coordinated military defense as "evil", even though it would rely heavily on centralized information control.

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

#980

Post by zepto »

arghwhat wrote: post #961
zepto wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Aggression in the sense of language style, is very much in the eye of the beholder. As is assigning value to a ‘flamewar’. One person’s meaningless flamewar is another person’s valuable but heated argument.

Not any more so than physically. Sure, if you stop something early you may have overstepped, but no one questions violence taking place when rocks are being thrown. Same goes for once a discussion degrades to ad hominem attacks/insults.

This is simply not correct.

You may call something an insult or an ad hominem as a third party, but you cannot know what value the consenting parties are gaining from the fight.

If you claim that you do, you are asserting that you know better about their experience than they do.

I’m not saying there is no room for third parties to intervene, but I question the judgement of anyone who thinks it’s that easy.

There are good reasons why people choose to engage in combative dialog, although it may not be obvious to observers.

Post reply on HN