7 ms·

Imagine being forced to remove this article, the server provider cuts off service, and your domain banned because these kind of articles have violated terms of

Imagine being forced to remove this article, the server provider cuts off service, and your domain banned because these kind of articles have violated terms of services. That's happening on YouTube now.

happytoexplain 6y ago
I usually find that if you have to make an analogy for any reason other than explaining something technically complex, your position is probably faulty. E.g. in this case, I'd call this a false equivalence. Rather than making an analogy, you should explain directly why YouTube's policy is immoral or dangerous, rather than indirectly pointing at some other scenario, which will always differ in many relevant and irrelevant ways by the simple nature of it being a different scenario. It needlessly complicates the conversation.
- oh_come_on 6y ago
  “Ackshually...”
- maallooc 6y ago
  Your video gets deleted, your channel gets a warning or a ban. Seems equivalent to what YouTube is doing to youtubers that posts information inconsistent with WHO.
  - jstewartmobile 6y ago
    The masks are coming off!
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    > Seems equivalent to what YouTube is doing to youtubers that posts information inconsistent with WHO. Absolutely nothing? Unless you post misinformation, in which case, it will be left up but demonetized. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en Where did you get the deletion and ban nonsense from?
    - maallooc 6y ago
      YouTube has banned any coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts World Health Organization (WHO) advice. The Google-owned service says it will remove anything it deems "medically unsubstantiated". “Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.” https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 "Now any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19, as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and local health authorities is in violation of YouTube policies. The firm may also prevent repeat offenders from earning money, and said it would terminate channels as a last resort. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52198946 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52198946 There's a convenient feature called search on HN or any other websites. I think you might want to use it.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        > Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy This looks like the CEO misquoting the policy. I linked to the actual policy. Where does it say what you claim? > "Now any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19, as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and local health authorities is in violation of YouTube policies." This is in violation for spreading harmful medical misinformation, not for contradicting the WHO, which (once again) is not prohibited by YouTube policy. > There's a convenient feature called search on HN or any other websites. I think you might want to use it. If you had used that feature, you might have come across https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22963070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22963070 I suggest you learn how to read critically instead of blindly believing anything you read on the Internet.
        maallooc 6y ago
        Oh yeah, believe some outdated policy than the CEO's recent interview. That's some quality fact checking right there! Congrets on your bleeding edge method of fact checking.
- Noumenon72 6y ago
  That process of finding the relevant and irrelevant differences is how some people think. I can go farther astray by saying "This copy and paste is immoral and dangerous because DRY" than "This copy and paste seems lazy, but would I object to it if it were generated code?" The analogy gets me abstracting features of the original problem and helps me see what parts of my reaction were attached to my framing of the original scenario. What doesn't work so well is analogizing to things that are more emotionally intense. It comes from wanting your words to match the intensity of your emotions when the real thing is really not that bad.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not an analogy. There's a very serious risk that Youtube's policy will be used to prohibit honest, good faith disagreement of the kind discussed in the original article. (Medium's similar policy already has been!)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
peteretep 6y ago
Do you have a specific example you want us to consider?
pgsbathhouse2 6y ago
>That's happening on YouTube now. Good. They should continue.

happytoexplain 6y ago

I usually find that if you have to make an analogy for any reason other than explaining something technically complex, your position is probably faulty. E.g. in this case, I'd call this a false equivalence. Rather than making an analogy, you should explain directly why YouTube's policy is immoral or dangerous, rather than indirectly pointing at some other scenario, which will always differ in many relevant and irrelevant ways by the simple nature of it being a different scenario. It needlessly complicates the conversation.

oh_come_on 6y ago
“Ackshually...”
maallooc 6y ago
Your video gets deleted, your channel gets a warning or a ban. Seems equivalent to what YouTube is doing to youtubers that posts information inconsistent with WHO.
- jstewartmobile 6y ago
  The masks are coming off!
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > Seems equivalent to what YouTube is doing to youtubers that posts information inconsistent with WHO. Absolutely nothing? Unless you post misinformation, in which case, it will be left up but demonetized. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en Where did you get the deletion and ban nonsense from?
  - maallooc 6y ago
    YouTube has banned any coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts World Health Organization (WHO) advice. The Google-owned service says it will remove anything it deems "medically unsubstantiated". “Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.” https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 "Now any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19, as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and local health authorities is in violation of YouTube policies. The firm may also prevent repeat offenders from earning money, and said it would terminate channels as a last resort. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52198946 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52198946 There's a convenient feature called search on HN or any other websites. I think you might want to use it.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      > Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy This looks like the CEO misquoting the policy. I linked to the actual policy. Where does it say what you claim? > "Now any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19, as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and local health authorities is in violation of YouTube policies." This is in violation for spreading harmful medical misinformation, not for contradicting the WHO, which (once again) is not prohibited by YouTube policy. > There's a convenient feature called search on HN or any other websites. I think you might want to use it. If you had used that feature, you might have come across https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22963070 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22963070 I suggest you learn how to read critically instead of blindly believing anything you read on the Internet.
      - maallooc 6y ago
        Oh yeah, believe some outdated policy than the CEO's recent interview. That's some quality fact checking right there! Congrets on your bleeding edge method of fact checking.
Noumenon72 6y ago
That process of finding the relevant and irrelevant differences is how some people think. I can go farther astray by saying "This copy and paste is immoral and dangerous because DRY" than "This copy and paste seems lazy, but would I object to it if it were generated code?" The analogy gets me abstracting features of the original problem and helps me see what parts of my reaction were attached to my framing of the original scenario. What doesn't work so well is analogizing to things that are more emotionally intense. It comes from wanting your words to match the intensity of your emotions when the real thing is really not that bad.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's not an analogy. There's a very serious risk that Youtube's policy will be used to prohibit honest, good faith disagreement of the kind discussed in the original article. (Medium's similar policy already has been!)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

peteretep 6y ago

Do you have a specific example you want us to consider?

pgsbathhouse2 6y ago

>That's happening on YouTube now. Good. They should continue.