13 ms·

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that cover

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics. Yes, there's a lot of information out there about SARS-COV2 and COVID-19 infections out there that are downright misleading at best and life threatening at worst. No, censoring that content including videos is NOT the role of a hosting platform. We already have examples of central authorities pushing "information" that they agree with and supressing information they believe is "incorrect" - as a freeish country, we should absolutely not encourage this behavior. The argument can be made that Youtube is a private company and free to do as they please. I personally dont agree with that argument - to a regular random person, Youtube is synonymous with video content. Youtube is the news. Perhaps one solution for Youtube would be to demonetize and label such content as "unsafe" aka "don't sue me bro mode". Anyone who's a minor doesnt get to see this "unsafe" content. Anyone who watches the content with "unsafe" mode on, sees the content. Give customers the choice to choose and make up their own minds. Removing content with the authority of being the primary video content platform? They don't get away so easy. With power comes responsibility. They have to handle this another way and this, is not it.

cambalache 6y ago
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Agree, youtube has to be very careful there. > WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics. Hell no! The fact you even consider them in the same sentence is astounding. No point in continue reading .
- GhettoMaestro 6y ago
  > Hell no! The fact you even consider them in the same sentence is astounding. No point in continue reading . NPC programming successful. Unauthorized content tail-dropped.
- subhobroto 6y ago
  Thank you for taking the time to not only read my thoughts but responding to them with your own. > Hell no! The fact you even consider them in the same sentence is astounding Which one do you disagree with: 1. WHO is a political organization with medical leaning 2. Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics.
  - nikofeyn 6y ago
    you conveniently left out number three in that you connected (1) and (2) via analogical reasoning. of course, i suspect that's what they disagree with.
    - subhobroto 6y ago
      > i suspect that's what they disagree with Ah, I see your point. Equating WHO to Fox News directly as organizations does not make any sense. They are not even on the same domain. I assumed, the readership would not conflate them on all possible attributes. The reason for my statement was specifically to point out the flaw that WHO is guided solely by medical reasoning. Just like it would be a flaw to assume Fox News is the unbiased broker of news events. Is the connection that cambalache thought I was making that WHO and Fox News are both brokers of medical news and information? If so, I'm at a loss on how to better phrase "WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics." to convey my intent and would really appreciate better phrasing.
      - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
        I would posit that the analogy is unnecessary and detrimental and that the statement "WHO is a political organization with medical leanings" stands perfectly well on its own. As have been outlined in this thread, the analogy serves more to lead the reader to wonder whether you meant to equate the two in quality or some other attribute(s) moreso than it does to explain the meaning of the first statement.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  All organizations are political organizations. However, with regards to COVID, I consider WHO's advice to be mainly aimed at preventing COVID and trust them more than the USG on these issues.
duxup 6y ago
If Youtube is the news ... that would seem to involve even more editorial management.
tree3 6y ago
> No, censoring that content including videos is NOT the role of a hosting platform. Huh? If I ran a hosting platform and people were putting absolute BS on there, I'd remove it too. People who run hosting platforms want to have integrity.
- graeme 6y ago
  The WHO denied human-to-human transmission even after Taiwan told them about it, and they dug their heels on calling the outbreak a pandemic for weeks. I think it depends how youtube draws the line. If they’re removing stuff like “use colloidial silver” or “no need to wash your hands” then sure. But the WHO is not gospel.
  - nemo 6y ago
    The errors the WHO has made have generally been corrected and so far as reliable authorities go on the pandemic there isn't a more reliable one, even if all are fallible. It's a better standard than nothing for stopping misinformation from killing people.
    - Red-Ted 6y ago
      Hello CCP so glad you could join us.
    - graeme 6y ago
      I agree that they're generally have good advice. But, I looked at their mask guidance, and they're still recommending that healthy people do not need to wear masks. This ignores the possibility that people may be asymptomatic and contagious. Some government authorities have called for mask wearing outside. They are contradicting the WHO. Should Youtube remove these views? That's why I said it all depends just how strictly they're going on WHO guidelines. If they're only removing obvious nonsense, fine. But the WHO should not be the only authority, especially if different health authorities may disagree. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
WalterBright 6y ago
> just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics All TV news shows are that. For example, consider the cliche about the news business "if it bleeds, it leads" which is far older than Fox News.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Some are more that than others. I'm very tired of fallacies of composition.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Be careful that it's not just shows that seem to agree with one's particular personal biases.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      How is it you assume you have the agency to make objective assessments, but that others don't?
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        I didn't say I did. I said one must be very careful to not leap to the conclusion that just because a show agrees with you, that therefore they are unbiased. Or that one is not suffering from bias themselves. We're all very good at tricking ourselves into believing that we are objective. It's called confirmation bias. Although some of us, like me, actually are being objective.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        Flattening everything into being equal remains fallacious.
tomohawk 6y ago
Agree. They are a monopoly, and cannot be allowed to function like any old hosting platform. The WHO was wrong on many occasions during this pandemic. They said it couldn't or was hard to transmit between people - meanwhile, it was spreading everywhere and Taiwan tried to warn them. They said we should not shut down international travel from China. Wrong again. Taiwan and a few others did and it helped out immensely. Appealing to human authority as the source of truth is dangerous. For humans, truth only has a chance to come out when vigorous debate is allowed. EDIT: adding references as requested. WHO ignored Taiwan: https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202003240229.aspx https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202003240229.aspx On Jan 12: According to the preliminary epidemiological investigation, most cases worked at or were handlers and frequent visitors to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person. Currently, no case with infection of this novel coronavirus has been reported elsewhere other than Wuhan. https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronaviru...
- stOneskull 6y ago
  There are doctors who disagree with WHO and we should be able to hear them.
- phs318u 6y ago
  Can you please provide references for your assertions. Thanks.
  - eej71 6y ago
    Not the original poster, but I found at least this one. https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en
    - knzhou 6y ago
      "No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare.
magwa101 6y ago
Strawman arguments.
Pxtl 6y ago
Misinformation is killing people. Given that, who should YouTube use as a source of truth? The US government? Bill Nye the Science Guy? Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona?
- ColanR 6y ago
  4chan was taking the virus seriously back in January, when the WHO was denying the need for travel lockdowns. The misinformation coming out of the WHO is what killed people, not the early warning that 4chan gave us. Edit: note that in both replies to my comment, none of the specific facts I mentioned were responded to. The response of the countries is being blamed, the date I mentioned is being ignored; but I am comparing the information coming publicly out of the WHO in January to the information coming out of 4chan in January. In hindsight, if you compared the information from both at that time, you would have had a better idea of the real situation if you believed 4chan over the WHO.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - phs318u 6y ago
    Do you really believe that? Check archive.org. The WHO published info on CV including technical guidance for the health ministries of nation states, at least as early as January 24. It’s safe to assume that national delegates would have been in discussions with WHO ahead of this. Remember, there’s only one WHO and yet we have many different responses and outcomes in different countries. The only logical conclusion is that those nations who’s responses led to poor outcomes should look to their own interpretation of WHO advice and the decisions they themselves made, as the cause of poor outcomes.
    - enaaem 6y ago
      In Februari the WHO urges to not impose travel bans: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chief-says-widespread-travel-bans-not-needed-to-beat-china-virus-idUSKBN1ZX1H3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chie... Nations who handled the crisis the best, imposed travel bans early on and were criticised by the WHO. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the-china-coronavirus-is-officially-an-international-emergency/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the-china...
Florin_Andrei 6y ago
> WHO is a political organization You're delusional, and you're infected with propaganda already. Full stop.
- dang 6y ago
  Personal attacks aren't allowed, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. Please don't post like this to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
thorwasdfasdf 6y ago
this is an excellent idea: safe mode. let people who can't decide for themselves what's safe to watch, let them watch safe mode only. everyone else, should be able to decide for themselves (opt in)
- phs318u 6y ago
  The problem isn’t letting people decide for themselves. It’s the fact that when it comes to some things, even a small minority “deciding stupid” can destroy the commons eg endanger lots of lives. Isn’t there a saying that’s something like, “your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins”?
  - subhobroto 6y ago
    > your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins I live by that philosophy! As I said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956768 "... if I see you foisting your opinions on what kind of content I get to see, that's you infringing on my freedom and we have a problem." Your quote is more concise and to the point :D
    - phs318u 6y ago
      Except the point I was making is that your right to act on your belief of egregious nonsense ends when it results in harm to me.
      - ken47 6y ago
        Who gets to decide what is nonsense. What happens when society thinks YOU are the one with nonsensical beliefs? "Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convi...
JungleGymSam 6y ago
> Anyone who's a minor doesnt get to see this "unsafe" content. Even that is an authoritarian nightmare. We already have laws that restrict minors from participating in certain activities. You're saying you want YouTube to be the parental guardian of children based on their current whims. They should bar content from minors where the law requires it. Let the legislatures battle the people over whether the law-of-land should include barring minors from information that "contradicts" the WHO. How easily we drop our freedom and liberty for a tiny bit of supposed safety. Unbelievable.
traderjane 6y ago
I think tech moved too quickly and in some ways, due to power being left on the table by government, tech became responsible; much like how businesses have taken up the responsibility of American healthcare due to the issue being under-addressed by government. Now that YouTube is used by people of all ages, Google has to make social and political decisions about what kind of content is appropriate for different ages.
TomMckenny 6y ago
There is a great deal of complexity here. On the broader topic, breaking up Youtube, Facebook and the like is entirely desirable but would probably be pointless unfortunately. Increases in copyright zeal make a new competitor to YouTube impossible and the network effect guarantees both theirs and Faceebook's dominance. In light of this, I imagine the only solution is to legislatively guarantee an uncensored platform on essentially the same logic that requires net-neutrality. But I point out that "uncensored" is entirely ambiguous. For better or worse, the vast mass of people want and expect it with the percentage very dependent on the particular item. From archaic restrictions on "dirty" words over radio waves through to displays of sex to recruiting terrorists to national secrets to doxing individuals to child pornography. For right or wrong, somewhere, the public, legislators and each individual decides to draw a line. In addition, for short periods of crisis or certain locations or certain influencers, the line can move. The often misused example of yelling fire in a theater comes to mind but a national leader harmfully using false announcements to raise the value of stock he owns would be an example. More relevant would be the South African leader who zealously told his people AIDS can only come from drug abuse. On the YouTube issue, for right or wrong, they drew the line in a place some would not. I would guess because they view such messaging as unusually fatal in the short term and they don't want to be a part of it. And that they could not find any simple judgement criterion that would do what they want without doing too much and yet be palatable world wide. If we legally require them to carry every upload regardless of content then it will lift all their burdens. But it will certainly create very real problems for others. My point is that the issue is far more complex than bumper sticker sized answers.
- mikedilger 6y ago
  Might I suggest a line? Damage. Quantifiable damage that reasonable people could assess in a court of law. Stop and think about every exception to free speech that the US has: libel/slander, disclosing troop movements, breaking non disclosure agreements, perverting the course of justice, direct incitement of violence... they all fairly directly cause damage. This line is not particularly fuzzy, and it makes some forms of censorship against speech that clearly doesn't cause direct quantifiable damage stand out as something entirely different than the other exceptions. Some examples: hate speech does not cause damage that could be proved and quantified in a court of law. "Bad words" do not cause damage. Conspiracy theories do not directly cause damage (unless a court decided reasonable people would do things that caused damage based on the information, so there could be exceptions here). Everything is indeed complex. But some ways of thinking about a problem can make the complexity more manageable.
ajross 6y ago
> WHO is a political organization The YouTube statement was not, really, about the WHO. It was an interview. Wojcicki was pointing out that they'll be removing "medically unsubstantiated" content like 5G conspiracy theories, and as an example said that anything that clearly contradicts the WHO would likely not qualify. The decision to put "WHO" up there in the lede seems to be click baiting on the part of the BBC. Frustratingly I can't find a link to a transcript of the original interview, or even an indication from the article about who it was with.
- junar 6y ago
  Yes, it's disappointing that that the conversation has shifted to extreme examples. The actual policy seems reasonable and has room for discretion. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260 > Fact check your work. Use reputable sources from organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and National Health Service to inform your content. For official resources relevant to your country/region, check here.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Google has a long history of partnering with partisan political organizations to police content, including Politifact and the Washington Post, among others. WHO is just another example.
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
private company doesn't fly. The moment they started curating their content, they are no longer pipes, they are editors. As such, they are subject to freedom of speech rules, and likely will come under increasing scrutiny as they very well should. Its about time, too.
mmazing 6y ago
In the age of misinformation, how do we better equip our society to know (or even desire to know) what is accurate information? I think it's easy to think of censorship as the answer, and it's easy to think that in this extreme circumstance that it's the answer. Maybe it is a slippery slope. It is a problem though. People aren't doing a very good job of handling it on their own, either. So what's the answer? Genuinely curious about this.
- brlewis 6y ago
  Concise statements, concise pro arguments, concise con arguments, each pro/con having its own pro/con arguments behind it via hypertext. Make it easier to explore the tree of evidence.
  - ElCapitanMarkla 6y ago
    If that worked, antivaxers wouldn’t be a thing.
  - knzhou 6y ago
    It doesn't work that way. It's trivial to build a rigged tree of evidence that makes any claim look good. Remember gish gallops from 90s internet arguments?
    - mmazing 6y ago
      Trump's entire presidency is one long gish gallop.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  The answer is reputation. Organizations need to market their dedication to objectivity - the processes they combat their own biases and the ability they have to cover different perspectives.
- chrisin2d 6y ago
  I think that HN readers trend rationalist and see the problem as one of presenting evidence. I respectfully disagree and present a different perspective, one which premises that objectivity is futile and that information is social/tribal. There is truth and then there is information. I think that people can know only information — projections of truth we think to be truthful. Information must be stored as memory and thereby is rendered organic and messy. I argue that information is socially constructed. Given the overwhelming complexity of the world, individuals evaluate the trustworthiness of information by how much they trust its transmitter and how people in their network — who collectively form their realities — also receive that information. There is scarcely enough time or resources for individuals to independently evaluate information (in a non-social way for truthiness). Observe for ourselves: how much do we accept as information just because someone we and our friends/family/colleagues trust says it? In short, (I think that) we believe what others believe. The cost of evaluating information is too high, and so too is the social cost of believing something that is contrary to the beliefs of those others who constitute our immediate realities (the ones we directly experience day to day). The answer in a democratic society that aims to have a free press? I think that at an abstract level the answer will have something to do with shortening the diameter of our society-level social network and more densely connecting distant subgraphs — such that different social realities can be bridged and the Overton window can be narrowed around the mean. One merge-tribes implementation: Institutions that socialise people at a national or state-level and cross social classes, like a year of mandatory national civil service around the country. As we go through life, we progress through a series of institutions that socialise us at increasingly wider levels: family, grade school (hyperlocal), maybe religious group, middle school (local), high school (local), then university for some (international or national but upper middle-class if prestigious; otherwise regional). The EU’s Erasmus Programme brings EU students to study in other EU countries: individual networks that otherwise would never connect, get connected — and at a collective level the Programme contributes toward a pan-European identity. But in the US and the EU there are lack of institutions that socialise the masses both at a national/union level and across class. I expect that people will balk at the idea of a compulsory program in a “free” society, but I think that it is more productive for people to think about what a healthy society should ask of each members so that it can sustain a healthy abundance of freedom. Another idea: Facebook and other online social networks creating intimate channels — not mass channels that inevitably devolve into shouting and chanting — that foster more cross-societal interaction and awareness. Though I think this is a lot weaker than an “IRL” solution. I find our modern epistemic crisis very interesting and welcome emails to discuss.
floatingatoll 6y ago
You have not made a case for why you think that public health issues — such as Covid — should be a topic fully exempt from restriction by YouTube. You've made the case that freedom is good and that YouTube can take all sorts of steps, but you haven't explain at all what your position on this tradeoff is. As a country that restricts public behaviors when they conflict with public welfare, it is plausible to expect that YouTube would restrict contradictory information about Covid at this time. There are millions of views on content suggesting that Covid isn't real, for example, and those will — under this plausibly correct approach — end up terminated and removed. What public good do you suggest outweighs the public harm done by allowing (for example) "Covid isn't real" content to remain visible online? You haven't described any public good that lends weight to your argument, and without that, your argument won't sell to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Freedom is not always a good thing, and we absolutely have laws restricting it for valid and serious reasons. If you wish others to consider that YouTube should exercise less restriction of freedom in this area, you need to be much more specific about why — to you, personally! — you think that good will come of them backing off.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  By the time the United States was founded, the idea of restricting speech that "conflict[s] with the public welfare" had become so frequently abused for self-serving censorship that a prohibition against the whole idea was written into the the highest laws of the country. The rationale for doing so applies today. A society can't figure out what is true if well-meaning people in power have the ability to censor anything that they don't believe is true. Censors can be mistaken on the facts as much as anyone else, and it's a fundamental weakness in human nature that we apply different standards to claims for and against our interests. Some central body limiting information flows for the "public good" has never led to anything actually good and never will. The public good arising from free speech is truth.
  - 361994752 6y ago
    Thanks for your explanation. But one thing still confuses me.. that we should just leave the "covid is a lie" contents there despite the high possibility that it may kill people?
asdff 6y ago
Ultimately, youtube is a website and not a utility. If someone posted something bad on your website, you'd probably delete it, too.
leoh 6y ago
This is a terrible take. > WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics. Yes, they have opinions. That doesn't make them as corrupt as Fox News.
- 0xy 6y ago
  By spreading misinformation about face masks and travel bans, they do actually put people's lives on the line, though. WHO's body count is greater than some cable news network with less viewership than a mid-sized YouTube channel. Let's not forget WHO opposed travel bans on numerous occasions, said face masks were not effective, and repeated CCP propaganda verbatim while seeking to punish China's enemies (and hanging up on reporters when questioned about it). Then the Director-General implied, without a shred of evidence, that he was the victim of racist smears from Taiwan's government after he sought to put them in direct danger by denying them access to critical data. The WHO is worse than Fox News and it's not even in the same ballpark.

cambalache 6y ago

> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Agree, youtube has to be very careful there. > WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics. Hell no! The fact you even consider them in the same sentence is astounding. No point in continue reading .

GhettoMaestro 6y ago
> Hell no! The fact you even consider them in the same sentence is astounding. No point in continue reading . NPC programming successful. Unauthorized content tail-dropped.
subhobroto 6y ago
Thank you for taking the time to not only read my thoughts but responding to them with your own. > Hell no! The fact you even consider them in the same sentence is astounding Which one do you disagree with: 1. WHO is a political organization with medical leaning 2. Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics.
- nikofeyn 6y ago
  you conveniently left out number three in that you connected (1) and (2) via analogical reasoning. of course, i suspect that's what they disagree with.
  - subhobroto 6y ago
    > i suspect that's what they disagree with Ah, I see your point. Equating WHO to Fox News directly as organizations does not make any sense. They are not even on the same domain. I assumed, the readership would not conflate them on all possible attributes. The reason for my statement was specifically to point out the flaw that WHO is guided solely by medical reasoning. Just like it would be a flaw to assume Fox News is the unbiased broker of news events. Is the connection that cambalache thought I was making that WHO and Fox News are both brokers of medical news and information? If so, I'm at a loss on how to better phrase "WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics." to convey my intent and would really appreciate better phrasing.
    - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
      I would posit that the analogy is unnecessary and detrimental and that the statement "WHO is a political organization with medical leanings" stands perfectly well on its own. As have been outlined in this thread, the analogy serves more to lead the reader to wonder whether you meant to equate the two in quality or some other attribute(s) moreso than it does to explain the meaning of the first statement.
tehjoker 6y ago
All organizations are political organizations. However, with regards to COVID, I consider WHO's advice to be mainly aimed at preventing COVID and trust them more than the USG on these issues.

duxup 6y ago

If Youtube is the news ... that would seem to involve even more editorial management.

tree3 6y ago

> No, censoring that content including videos is NOT the role of a hosting platform. Huh? If I ran a hosting platform and people were putting absolute BS on there, I'd remove it too. People who run hosting platforms want to have integrity.

graeme 6y ago
The WHO denied human-to-human transmission even after Taiwan told them about it, and they dug their heels on calling the outbreak a pandemic for weeks. I think it depends how youtube draws the line. If they’re removing stuff like “use colloidial silver” or “no need to wash your hands” then sure. But the WHO is not gospel.
- nemo 6y ago
  The errors the WHO has made have generally been corrected and so far as reliable authorities go on the pandemic there isn't a more reliable one, even if all are fallible. It's a better standard than nothing for stopping misinformation from killing people.
  - Red-Ted 6y ago
    Hello CCP so glad you could join us.
  - graeme 6y ago
    I agree that they're generally have good advice. But, I looked at their mask guidance, and they're still recommending that healthy people do not need to wear masks. This ignores the possibility that people may be asymptomatic and contagious. Some government authorities have called for mask wearing outside. They are contradicting the WHO. Should Youtube remove these views? That's why I said it all depends just how strictly they're going on WHO guidelines. If they're only removing obvious nonsense, fine. But the WHO should not be the only authority, especially if different health authorities may disagree. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...

WalterBright 6y ago

> just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics All TV news shows are that. For example, consider the cliche about the news business "if it bleeds, it leads" which is far older than Fox News.

anigbrowl 6y ago
Some are more that than others. I'm very tired of fallacies of composition.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Be careful that it's not just shows that seem to agree with one's particular personal biases.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    How is it you assume you have the agency to make objective assessments, but that others don't?
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      I didn't say I did. I said one must be very careful to not leap to the conclusion that just because a show agrees with you, that therefore they are unbiased. Or that one is not suffering from bias themselves. We're all very good at tricking ourselves into believing that we are objective. It's called confirmation bias. Although some of us, like me, actually are being objective.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        Flattening everything into being equal remains fallacious.

tomohawk 6y ago

Agree. They are a monopoly, and cannot be allowed to function like any old hosting platform. The WHO was wrong on many occasions during this pandemic. They said it couldn't or was hard to transmit between people - meanwhile, it was spreading everywhere and Taiwan tried to warn them. They said we should not shut down international travel from China. Wrong again. Taiwan and a few others did and it helped out immensely. Appealing to human authority as the source of truth is dangerous. For humans, truth only has a chance to come out when vigorous debate is allowed. EDIT: adding references as requested. WHO ignored Taiwan: https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202003240229.aspx https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202003240229.aspx On Jan 12: According to the preliminary epidemiological investigation, most cases worked at or were handlers and frequent visitors to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person. Currently, no case with infection of this novel coronavirus has been reported elsewhere other than Wuhan. https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronaviru...

stOneskull 6y ago
There are doctors who disagree with WHO and we should be able to hear them.
phs318u 6y ago
Can you please provide references for your assertions. Thanks.
- eej71 6y ago
  Not the original poster, but I found at least this one. https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en
  - knzhou 6y ago
    "No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare.

magwa101 6y ago

Strawman arguments.

Pxtl 6y ago

Misinformation is killing people. Given that, who should YouTube use as a source of truth? The US government? Bill Nye the Science Guy? Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona?

ColanR 6y ago
4chan was taking the virus seriously back in January, when the WHO was denying the need for travel lockdowns. The misinformation coming out of the WHO is what killed people, not the early warning that 4chan gave us. Edit: note that in both replies to my comment, none of the specific facts I mentioned were responded to. The response of the countries is being blamed, the date I mentioned is being ignored; but I am comparing the information coming publicly out of the WHO in January to the information coming out of 4chan in January. In hindsight, if you compared the information from both at that time, you would have had a better idea of the real situation if you believed 4chan over the WHO.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- phs318u 6y ago
  Do you really believe that? Check archive.org. The WHO published info on CV including technical guidance for the health ministries of nation states, at least as early as January 24. It’s safe to assume that national delegates would have been in discussions with WHO ahead of this. Remember, there’s only one WHO and yet we have many different responses and outcomes in different countries. The only logical conclusion is that those nations who’s responses led to poor outcomes should look to their own interpretation of WHO advice and the decisions they themselves made, as the cause of poor outcomes.
  - enaaem 6y ago
    In Februari the WHO urges to not impose travel bans: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chief-says-widespread-travel-bans-not-needed-to-beat-china-virus-idUSKBN1ZX1H3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chie... Nations who handled the crisis the best, imposed travel bans early on and were criticised by the WHO. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the-china-coronavirus-is-officially-an-international-emergency/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the-china...

Florin_Andrei 6y ago

> WHO is a political organization You're delusional, and you're infected with propaganda already. Full stop.

dang 6y ago
Personal attacks aren't allowed, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. Please don't post like this to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

thorwasdfasdf 6y ago

this is an excellent idea: safe mode. let people who can't decide for themselves what's safe to watch, let them watch safe mode only. everyone else, should be able to decide for themselves (opt in)

phs318u 6y ago
The problem isn’t letting people decide for themselves. It’s the fact that when it comes to some things, even a small minority “deciding stupid” can destroy the commons eg endanger lots of lives. Isn’t there a saying that’s something like, “your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins”?
- subhobroto 6y ago
  > your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins I live by that philosophy! As I said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956768 "... if I see you foisting your opinions on what kind of content I get to see, that's you infringing on my freedom and we have a problem." Your quote is more concise and to the point :D
  - phs318u 6y ago
    Except the point I was making is that your right to act on your belief of egregious nonsense ends when it results in harm to me.
    - ken47 6y ago
      Who gets to decide what is nonsense. What happens when society thinks YOU are the one with nonsensical beliefs? "Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy." https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convi...

JungleGymSam 6y ago

> Anyone who's a minor doesnt get to see this "unsafe" content. Even that is an authoritarian nightmare. We already have laws that restrict minors from participating in certain activities. You're saying you want YouTube to be the parental guardian of children based on their current whims. They should bar content from minors where the law requires it. Let the legislatures battle the people over whether the law-of-land should include barring minors from information that "contradicts" the WHO. How easily we drop our freedom and liberty for a tiny bit of supposed safety. Unbelievable.

traderjane 6y ago

I think tech moved too quickly and in some ways, due to power being left on the table by government, tech became responsible; much like how businesses have taken up the responsibility of American healthcare due to the issue being under-addressed by government. Now that YouTube is used by people of all ages, Google has to make social and political decisions about what kind of content is appropriate for different ages.

TomMckenny 6y ago

There is a great deal of complexity here. On the broader topic, breaking up Youtube, Facebook and the like is entirely desirable but would probably be pointless unfortunately. Increases in copyright zeal make a new competitor to YouTube impossible and the network effect guarantees both theirs and Faceebook's dominance. In light of this, I imagine the only solution is to legislatively guarantee an uncensored platform on essentially the same logic that requires net-neutrality. But I point out that "uncensored" is entirely ambiguous. For better or worse, the vast mass of people want and expect it with the percentage very dependent on the particular item. From archaic restrictions on "dirty" words over radio waves through to displays of sex to recruiting terrorists to national secrets to doxing individuals to child pornography. For right or wrong, somewhere, the public, legislators and each individual decides to draw a line. In addition, for short periods of crisis or certain locations or certain influencers, the line can move. The often misused example of yelling fire in a theater comes to mind but a national leader harmfully using false announcements to raise the value of stock he owns would be an example. More relevant would be the South African leader who zealously told his people AIDS can only come from drug abuse. On the YouTube issue, for right or wrong, they drew the line in a place some would not. I would guess because they view such messaging as unusually fatal in the short term and they don't want to be a part of it. And that they could not find any simple judgement criterion that would do what they want without doing too much and yet be palatable world wide. If we legally require them to carry every upload regardless of content then it will lift all their burdens. But it will certainly create very real problems for others. My point is that the issue is far more complex than bumper sticker sized answers.

mikedilger 6y ago
Might I suggest a line? Damage. Quantifiable damage that reasonable people could assess in a court of law. Stop and think about every exception to free speech that the US has: libel/slander, disclosing troop movements, breaking non disclosure agreements, perverting the course of justice, direct incitement of violence... they all fairly directly cause damage. This line is not particularly fuzzy, and it makes some forms of censorship against speech that clearly doesn't cause direct quantifiable damage stand out as something entirely different than the other exceptions. Some examples: hate speech does not cause damage that could be proved and quantified in a court of law. "Bad words" do not cause damage. Conspiracy theories do not directly cause damage (unless a court decided reasonable people would do things that caused damage based on the information, so there could be exceptions here). Everything is indeed complex. But some ways of thinking about a problem can make the complexity more manageable.

ajross 6y ago

> WHO is a political organization The YouTube statement was not, really, about the WHO. It was an interview. Wojcicki was pointing out that they'll be removing "medically unsubstantiated" content like 5G conspiracy theories, and as an example said that anything that clearly contradicts the WHO would likely not qualify. The decision to put "WHO" up there in the lede seems to be click baiting on the part of the BBC. Frustratingly I can't find a link to a transcript of the original interview, or even an indication from the article about who it was with.

junar 6y ago
Yes, it's disappointing that that the conversation has shifted to extreme examples. The actual policy seems reasonable and has room for discretion. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260 > Fact check your work. Use reputable sources from organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and National Health Service to inform your content. For official resources relevant to your country/region, check here.
0xy 6y ago
Google has a long history of partnering with partisan political organizations to police content, including Politifact and the Washington Post, among others. WHO is just another example.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

private company doesn't fly. The moment they started curating their content, they are no longer pipes, they are editors. As such, they are subject to freedom of speech rules, and likely will come under increasing scrutiny as they very well should. Its about time, too.

mmazing 6y ago

In the age of misinformation, how do we better equip our society to know (or even desire to know) what is accurate information? I think it's easy to think of censorship as the answer, and it's easy to think that in this extreme circumstance that it's the answer. Maybe it is a slippery slope. It is a problem though. People aren't doing a very good job of handling it on their own, either. So what's the answer? Genuinely curious about this.

brlewis 6y ago
Concise statements, concise pro arguments, concise con arguments, each pro/con having its own pro/con arguments behind it via hypertext. Make it easier to explore the tree of evidence.
- ElCapitanMarkla 6y ago
  If that worked, antivaxers wouldn’t be a thing.
- knzhou 6y ago
  It doesn't work that way. It's trivial to build a rigged tree of evidence that makes any claim look good. Remember gish gallops from 90s internet arguments?
  - mmazing 6y ago
    Trump's entire presidency is one long gish gallop.
koheripbal 6y ago
The answer is reputation. Organizations need to market their dedication to objectivity - the processes they combat their own biases and the ability they have to cover different perspectives.
chrisin2d 6y ago
I think that HN readers trend rationalist and see the problem as one of presenting evidence. I respectfully disagree and present a different perspective, one which premises that objectivity is futile and that information is social/tribal. There is truth and then there is information. I think that people can know only information — projections of truth we think to be truthful. Information must be stored as memory and thereby is rendered organic and messy. I argue that information is socially constructed. Given the overwhelming complexity of the world, individuals evaluate the trustworthiness of information by how much they trust its transmitter and how people in their network — who collectively form their realities — also receive that information. There is scarcely enough time or resources for individuals to independently evaluate information (in a non-social way for truthiness). Observe for ourselves: how much do we accept as information just because someone we and our friends/family/colleagues trust says it? In short, (I think that) we believe what others believe. The cost of evaluating information is too high, and so too is the social cost of believing something that is contrary to the beliefs of those others who constitute our immediate realities (the ones we directly experience day to day). The answer in a democratic society that aims to have a free press? I think that at an abstract level the answer will have something to do with shortening the diameter of our society-level social network and more densely connecting distant subgraphs — such that different social realities can be bridged and the Overton window can be narrowed around the mean. One merge-tribes implementation: Institutions that socialise people at a national or state-level and cross social classes, like a year of mandatory national civil service around the country. As we go through life, we progress through a series of institutions that socialise us at increasingly wider levels: family, grade school (hyperlocal), maybe religious group, middle school (local), high school (local), then university for some (international or national but upper middle-class if prestigious; otherwise regional). The EU’s Erasmus Programme brings EU students to study in other EU countries: individual networks that otherwise would never connect, get connected — and at a collective level the Programme contributes toward a pan-European identity. But in the US and the EU there are lack of institutions that socialise the masses both at a national/union level and across class. I expect that people will balk at the idea of a compulsory program in a “free” society, but I think that it is more productive for people to think about what a healthy society should ask of each members so that it can sustain a healthy abundance of freedom. Another idea: Facebook and other online social networks creating intimate channels — not mass channels that inevitably devolve into shouting and chanting — that foster more cross-societal interaction and awareness. Though I think this is a lot weaker than an “IRL” solution. I find our modern epistemic crisis very interesting and welcome emails to discuss.

floatingatoll 6y ago

You have not made a case for why you think that public health issues — such as Covid — should be a topic fully exempt from restriction by YouTube. You've made the case that freedom is good and that YouTube can take all sorts of steps, but you haven't explain at all what your position on this tradeoff is. As a country that restricts public behaviors when they conflict with public welfare, it is plausible to expect that YouTube would restrict contradictory information about Covid at this time. There are millions of views on content suggesting that Covid isn't real, for example, and those will — under this plausibly correct approach — end up terminated and removed. What public good do you suggest outweighs the public harm done by allowing (for example) "Covid isn't real" content to remain visible online? You haven't described any public good that lends weight to your argument, and without that, your argument won't sell to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Freedom is not always a good thing, and we absolutely have laws restricting it for valid and serious reasons. If you wish others to consider that YouTube should exercise less restriction of freedom in this area, you need to be much more specific about why — to you, personally! — you think that good will come of them backing off.

quotemstr 6y ago
By the time the United States was founded, the idea of restricting speech that "conflict[s] with the public welfare" had become so frequently abused for self-serving censorship that a prohibition against the whole idea was written into the the highest laws of the country. The rationale for doing so applies today. A society can't figure out what is true if well-meaning people in power have the ability to censor anything that they don't believe is true. Censors can be mistaken on the facts as much as anyone else, and it's a fundamental weakness in human nature that we apply different standards to claims for and against our interests. Some central body limiting information flows for the "public good" has never led to anything actually good and never will. The public good arising from free speech is truth.
- 361994752 6y ago
  Thanks for your explanation. But one thing still confuses me.. that we should just leave the "covid is a lie" contents there despite the high possibility that it may kill people?

asdff 6y ago

Ultimately, youtube is a website and not a utility. If someone posted something bad on your website, you'd probably delete it, too.

leoh 6y ago

This is a terrible take. > WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics. Yes, they have opinions. That doesn't make them as corrupt as Fox News.

0xy 6y ago
By spreading misinformation about face masks and travel bans, they do actually put people's lives on the line, though. WHO's body count is greater than some cable news network with less viewership than a mid-sized YouTube channel. Let's not forget WHO opposed travel bans on numerous occasions, said face masks were not effective, and repeated CCP propaganda verbatim while seeking to punish China's enemies (and hanging up on reporters when questioned about it). Then the Director-General implied, without a shred of evidence, that he was the victim of racist smears from Taiwan's government after he sought to put them in direct danger by denying them access to critical data. The WHO is worse than Fox News and it's not even in the same ballpark.