4 ms·

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

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?

adatavizguy 7y ago
I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding what content is and is not allowed to be hosted on their private servers using their private services. This is very different from government officials that you vote for censoring free speech. Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live on Twitch, or, host it themselves on their own servers.
- AlchemistCamp 7y ago
  > I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding... YouTube is part of a gigantic, public company with more power than many world governments. In a very real sense, Alphabet is more powerful than a hypothetical Standard Oil that also owned one of the most popular two newspapers in every single city in the US. Their ability to shape markets, public opinion and even elections in 100+ countries is unprecedented and very easy to use with plausible deniability. Facebook is a similar sort of entity. In aggregate, the two control more personal communications than the postal service. The notion that only a government can be a threat to free speech is outdated and naive.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Almost seems like the problem is monopoly capitalism, doesn't it?
- alentist 7y ago
  > Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to ...criticize them on HackerNews.
- jshevek 7y ago
  >I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. Your snarky condescending tone is not helpful. Just because a person reaches a different conclusion than you doesn't mean that they lack information like this. I think it's dangerous to society to give corporations that have as much power as YouTube a pass simply because they are not government entities.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live on Twitch, or, host it themselves on their own servers You mean the Facebook that just banned WhatsApp message forwarding, despite their service supposedly being end-to-end encrypted? It didn't take long for that little sham to collapse did it? Sure, go self publish and watch as the self appointed guardians of the galaxy do everything in their power to stop you speaking. We're not debating Google here. Not really. We're debating the whole ethos of Silicon Valley liberals which has become, "we're smarter than you and will ensure you think what we want you to think". Except they're not smarter. Having worked there for years I can confidently say that whilst there might have been some merit to that argument a long time ago within the scope of computer science, but years of endless hiring has now made them distinctly average groups of people with no edge over the rest of the world. Yet they continue to believe merely being a part of a particular organisation allows them to instantaneously decide the correctness of any argument.
organsnyder 7y ago
Perhaps because their mission is to keep the world's inhabitants healthy? Of course, they have no legal authority over you, but listening to them is generally a good idea.
- nv-vn 7y ago
  I'm sure it doesn't seem like that to the citizens of Taiwan who are basically told to go fuck themselves by the WHO
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - vkou 7y ago
    I did not realize that the WHO's job is to get involved in arguments over borders. I always thought that their job was to get involved in arguments over public health.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Public health is the problem with them ignoring data from Taiwan.
      - vkou 7y ago
        1. What part of that statement makes you think that they ignored data from Taiwan? It was quite obviously a dodge of a politically sensitive question. 2. Both Taiwan and China claim to be China, so that statement wasn't even factually wrong.
        dependenttypes 7y ago
        > 2. Both Taiwan and China claim to be China, so that statement wasn't even factually wrong. Taiwan nowadays is kinda forced by China to claim to be China actually.
bad_user 7y ago
WHO currently represents the scientific consensus. No, they don't tell you what to do, it is your government that does that, or in this case a private entity. But anybody with a brain would go for the scientific consensus. (Even though, just to be clear, I don't agree with what YouTube is doing here)
- grawprog 7y ago
  Since when is science about consensus? I seem to recall learning more about falsification being the primary driver behind the scientific method, which tends to revolve around a rigorous process of trying to prove everything wrong until you just can't any more. Sure haven't seen a whole lot of that. Sure have seen a whole lot of, listen to us because this is what we say, without a whole lot of correctly collected data (emphasis on the correctly collected because data are worthless unless correctly collected, i've personally had to throw out hours of work because of sampling errors)to back anything up. Yet, I'm being told to accept lockdowns, police searches of homes and a whole host of human rights violations on the whims of some vague international appointed entity in the name of public safety. Any voice speaking against this is to be silenced on the public platforms of the day.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Yes, ignore all the overwhelmed hospitals and the sudden jump in mortality in Italy and Spain that made them decide to lock everything down after they already had a crisis on their hands. Rail more about a transnational organization with a long though often imperfect record of epidemiological expertise. Those bureaucrats in Geneva are personally ruining your life.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      >Yes, ignore all the overwhelmed hospitals and the sudden jump in mortality in Italy and Spain that made them decide to lock everything down after they already had a crisis on their hands. Rail more about a transnational organization with a long though often imperfect record of epidemiological expertise. Those bureaucrats in Geneva are personally ruining your life. Not one of these statements reflects any stated positions of the parent. All are hyperbolic mis-characterizations.
anigbrowl 7y ago
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.
- grawprog 7y ago
  https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-full-30mar2020.pdf?sfvrsn=6b68bc4a_2 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.

adatavizguy 7y ago

I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding what content is and is not allowed to be hosted on their private servers using their private services. This is very different from government officials that you vote for censoring free speech. Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live on Twitch, or, host it themselves on their own servers.

AlchemistCamp 7y ago
> I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding... YouTube is part of a gigantic, public company with more power than many world governments. In a very real sense, Alphabet is more powerful than a hypothetical Standard Oil that also owned one of the most popular two newspapers in every single city in the US. Their ability to shape markets, public opinion and even elections in 100+ countries is unprecedented and very easy to use with plausible deniability. Facebook is a similar sort of entity. In aggregate, the two control more personal communications than the postal service. The notion that only a government can be a threat to free speech is outdated and naive.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Almost seems like the problem is monopoly capitalism, doesn't it?
alentist 7y ago
> Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to ...criticize them on HackerNews.
jshevek 7y ago
>I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. Your snarky condescending tone is not helpful. Just because a person reaches a different conclusion than you doesn't mean that they lack information like this. I think it's dangerous to society to give corporations that have as much power as YouTube a pass simply because they are not government entities.
thu2111 7y ago
Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live on Twitch, or, host it themselves on their own servers You mean the Facebook that just banned WhatsApp message forwarding, despite their service supposedly being end-to-end encrypted? It didn't take long for that little sham to collapse did it? Sure, go self publish and watch as the self appointed guardians of the galaxy do everything in their power to stop you speaking. We're not debating Google here. Not really. We're debating the whole ethos of Silicon Valley liberals which has become, "we're smarter than you and will ensure you think what we want you to think". Except they're not smarter. Having worked there for years I can confidently say that whilst there might have been some merit to that argument a long time ago within the scope of computer science, but years of endless hiring has now made them distinctly average groups of people with no edge over the rest of the world. Yet they continue to believe merely being a part of a particular organisation allows them to instantaneously decide the correctness of any argument.

organsnyder 7y ago

Perhaps because their mission is to keep the world's inhabitants healthy? Of course, they have no legal authority over you, but listening to them is generally a good idea.

nv-vn 7y ago
I'm sure it doesn't seem like that to the citizens of Taiwan who are basically told to go fuck themselves by the WHO
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- vkou 7y ago
  I did not realize that the WHO's job is to get involved in arguments over borders. I always thought that their job was to get involved in arguments over public health.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Public health is the problem with them ignoring data from Taiwan.
    - vkou 7y ago
      1. What part of that statement makes you think that they ignored data from Taiwan? It was quite obviously a dodge of a politically sensitive question. 2. Both Taiwan and China claim to be China, so that statement wasn't even factually wrong.
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
        > 2. Both Taiwan and China claim to be China, so that statement wasn't even factually wrong. Taiwan nowadays is kinda forced by China to claim to be China actually.

bad_user 7y ago

WHO currently represents the scientific consensus. No, they don't tell you what to do, it is your government that does that, or in this case a private entity. But anybody with a brain would go for the scientific consensus. (Even though, just to be clear, I don't agree with what YouTube is doing here)

grawprog 7y ago
Since when is science about consensus? I seem to recall learning more about falsification being the primary driver behind the scientific method, which tends to revolve around a rigorous process of trying to prove everything wrong until you just can't any more. Sure haven't seen a whole lot of that. Sure have seen a whole lot of, listen to us because this is what we say, without a whole lot of correctly collected data (emphasis on the correctly collected because data are worthless unless correctly collected, i've personally had to throw out hours of work because of sampling errors)to back anything up. Yet, I'm being told to accept lockdowns, police searches of homes and a whole host of human rights violations on the whims of some vague international appointed entity in the name of public safety. Any voice speaking against this is to be silenced on the public platforms of the day.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Yes, ignore all the overwhelmed hospitals and the sudden jump in mortality in Italy and Spain that made them decide to lock everything down after they already had a crisis on their hands. Rail more about a transnational organization with a long though often imperfect record of epidemiological expertise. Those bureaucrats in Geneva are personally ruining your life.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >Yes, ignore all the overwhelmed hospitals and the sudden jump in mortality in Italy and Spain that made them decide to lock everything down after they already had a crisis on their hands. Rail more about a transnational organization with a long though often imperfect record of epidemiological expertise. Those bureaucrats in Geneva are personally ruining your life. Not one of these statements reflects any stated positions of the parent. All are hyperbolic mis-characterizations.

anigbrowl 7y ago

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.

grawprog 7y ago
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-full-30mar2020.pdf?sfvrsn=6b68bc4a_2 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.