31 ms·

YouTube removed a viral video of two doctors calling for an end to quarantine

• samizdis 6y ago
  It's still live at this link (at the time of posting): https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dr-erickson-covid-19-briefing/vi-BB133JTK https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dr-erickson-covid-19...
  • s9w 6y ago
    I guess the bigger question about this is what possible reasons to remove there could be. The video itself is pretty famous now and available in many places.
    • ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
      It says right in the article: "...noted relevant comments regarding censorship that YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki had recently made. "Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy ... [removal] is another really important part of of our policy," Wojcicki reportedly said."
      • s9w 6y ago
        That's speculation by an uninvolved person, not a YouTube statement.
        • ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
          My bad, in re-reading your comment I think I misunderstood your point.
        • CodeWriter23 6y ago
          Wojcicki seems substantially quoted here. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some implication you're attempting to make, would you like to clarify? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586
          • s9w 6y ago
            Sure, I didn't express myself clearly enough sorry. That WHO quote is hers and therefore that of Youtube. But it was a general remark made before the removal or even the creation of this video. The article in this submission however [and to some extent the comment above] seems to imply that her WHO remark gives the reason for the removal. Now it can of course still be that the WHO reasoning will at a later time be officially quoted for the removal of this video, but that is pure speculation. And also it would be a huge stretch. There is no official reason given for the removal.
            • CodeWriter23 6y ago
              Thanks.
      • Keverw 6y ago
        Why trust the WHO when they are being defunded in the first place? After mismanaging and trying to cover things up? Sounds like YouTube is blindly following the WHO. I am so sick of big tech and all the censorship, privacy invasion, etc. Wish there was more alternatives but everyone will flock to what’s popular... Wish I had the resources to start alternatives, maybe headquarters in Texas where I bet they have a more freedom mindset compared to all the Californian tech companies that’s just a bunch of followers instead of leaders. Seems all the stuff they preach about connecting the world, accessing all the worlds information and diversity is just some sort of double speak. Like censoring Alex Jones, sure people disagree with him maybe Just some things or even everything he says but if you don’t agree with him, don’t watch his channel, don’t follow him. This whole deplatformig thing is like something from 1984. I enjoy using YouTube for tech talks, tutorials, following vloggers but a lot of stuff about YouTube is disappointment... and then don’t even get me started mentioning all the automated copyright stuff that doesn’t even consider fair use or is abused.
        • gameswithgo 6y ago
          what do you do if alex jones is ruining your life because your kids died in a school shooting? that guy should be in jail.
        • weare138 6y ago
          > Alex Jones, sure people disagree with him maybe Just some things or even everything he says but if you don’t agree with him, don’t watch his channel, don’t follow him Alex Jones was successfully sued because of his videos and repeatedly warned. YouTube like any business has a right to legally protect themselves. If YT continues to host Jones's content they could be held legally liable. I'm no fan of YouTube but they're clearly in the right in Alex Jones's case.
          • Keverw 6y ago
            Yeah, I don't agree with anything Alex Jones says, but I do think he should be allowed to say his own perspectives on things. Just used him as an example. I never really watched his full shows which is a few hours daily I think. Don't really have the attention span to listen to all the people who call in and stuff. I seen just clips and hilights here and there. He recently built a new website which is sorta like his own little private YouTube. I'd imagine YouTube would be covered under Section 230 immunity would cover them. Personally I think as long as something isn't illegal, let them publish it... However I bet if you had that policy your hosting company would shut you down unless you owned your own datacenter and peering agreements... But I heard on YouTube you can't even say the C word right now without the algorithm messing with your videos... Like some travel vlogger was talking about how it disrupted his travel plans, so he called it the current unicorn instead. Not some conspiracy theory video either, just telling his true story. So I think YouTube is going overboard right now with their censorship... and more and more censorship, people start censoring themselves and are scared to speak out about things... I think this is a dangerous and dark path we're going down - regardless if people think there's some conspiracy with a global elite or deep state or whatever you want to call it is apart of it or not...
      • eloff 6y ago
        By that logic can they remove videos claiming masks are effective at protecting yourself and society from the virus? Because I seem to recall the WHO (or I think it was the CDC?) blatantly lying about the efficacy of masks in order to keep them available to health professionals. I think this underscores why I'm so uncomfortable with YouTube doing censorship (or anyone doing it). The official narrative is not always right. In fact anytime we have a new discovery in science it starts out in contrary to the official accepted explanation and only gradually and often grudgingly gains acceptance over time. If you silence dissenting voices you also silence progress. Which is maybe why China struggles to innovate compared to the West.
        • adamiscool8 6y ago
          My understanding has always been that good science is supposed to be falsifiable. If the new rules are science can only be dictated by authoritative institutions and cannot be publicly questioned, is it still science?
          • kordlessagain 6y ago
            The primary issue is that "dictating" has been implemented with owning the channels and making bad decisions with the channels consensus process. The Internet needs to be reworked to get rid of these large corporations being able to own channels, but Hell if I know how to do it.
        • orangecat 6y ago
          Because I seem to recall the WHO (or I think it was the CDC?) blatantly lying about the efficacy of masks in order to keep them available to health professionals. WHO is still lying, CDC has done a 180 and now recommends masks. So I suppose we should expect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPx1yqvJgf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPx1yqvJgf4 to get taken down anytime now.
          • TechBro8615 6y ago
            Good; I just reported it for “harmful and dangerous acts.”
    • hn_check 6y ago
      Because YouTube is already known as one of the worst cancers on the internet, and has allowed the stupid to herd and multiply. Flat Earth. Pizzagate. Soros conspiracies. Chemtrails. Anti-vaccers. These were all laughable fringe things that the disturbed came up with. Then YouTube came along and suddenly the stupid were discovering one another, confirming each other's idiocy. YouTube is probably a little tired of this. The fringe can of course create their own video sites, just as they made their own "Twitter" and their own "Reddit" (all abysmal failures when they learn how miserable and deplorable they are). LOL, dang -the enabler of right-wing asshats- has hellbanned me. ROFL. Eat a big ol' donkey dick, dang. You have turned HN into a AGW denying shithole.
      • dang 6y ago
        No one banned you. Your comment was affected by user flags and software. Rightly so, as you've been trolling up a storm (or trying to), and using multiple accounts to do it. Obviously, though, if you keep posting like this then we will have to ban you. If we don't, people will complain about us privileging you, as we ban other accounts for less and you're breaking the site guidelines badly: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Comments such as "dang -the enabler of right-wing asshats", "HN is a cesspool of anti-intellectual MAGA blowhards" (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hn_check https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hn_check), "only far-right anti-science, anti-intellectual noise" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014140) are helpful in a way. They go nicely with "The mods here are radical liberals", "left-wing propaganda", "dang is an SJW cunt", etc. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920602) and are handy for balancing the binary tree (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22784216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22784216).
  • drummer 6y ago
    This version contains an important piece at the end, additional 3 minutes: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cmjYRJXKixY https://youtube.com/watch?v=cmjYRJXKixY
    • James_Henry 6y ago
      Agreed. These people own several urgent care clinics and are suffering financially. I don't understand how much they understand about how misleading they are being (they could be foolish enough to believe their own mistakes) but it is clear that they are suffering financially and are trying to figure out a way to stay afloat.
      • busymom0 6y ago
        That's the exact opposite of what's happening: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fac...
        • James_Henry 6y ago
          No, urgent cares don't have patients on ventilators. But yes, there are some very perverse incentives in medicine.
    • lostsock 6y ago
      Wow, the last three minutes are very illustrative! Just watch for yourself. https://youtu.be/cmjYRJXKixY?t=3761 https://youtu.be/cmjYRJXKixY?t=3761
      • dredmorbius 6y ago
        "If you stomp on our freedoms, that has one ending, and that's violence", after talking about gun stores selling out of ammunition. Something tells me the medical angle isn't the only one these guys are pushing.
  • 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
    That's more than reasonable discussion going on there, what a weird decision by YouTube.
• drummer 6y ago
  It was a rather excellent presentation by these doctors. Honest and courageous. Simply cannot argue with the data and reasoning.
  • gameswithgo 6y ago
    you can quite easily argue with it as many here have.
  • henrikschroder 6y ago
    Except they're wrong. A simple check of excess mortality shows that something has already killed more people than would normally die during a bad flu season in areas affected by the virus, and we're nowhere near the end of the infection. And that's with lockdown measures that obviously suppress a bunch of common causes of death. To successfully argue that covid-19 is less bad than the flu, you would have to show that all these extra dead people died of something other than covid-19. Good luck with that.
    • busymom0 6y ago
      That's why they looked at the data comparison of Sweden vs Norway. Sweden didn't do lockdown while Norway did. The difference is insignificant.
      • henrikschroder 6y ago
        Yes, and Sweden has excess mortality that is higher than a bad flu year for Sweden, and the excess mortality matches up pretty well with the official covid-19 death count. Which means that covid-19 is deadlier than the flu. Just look at the excess mortality statistics for a bunch of European countries: https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps Many are seeing sharp increases in mortality, higher than normal flu years. If covid-19 isn't deadlier than a normal flu, then death rates must have spiked in all these countries because of something else. That is one extraordinary claim if I ever saw one. (In addition, it's false that Sweden isn't doing a lockdown. Sweden is simply one of the countries that have enacted the least harsh lockdown measures. It's a grayscale, not binary.)
• drummer 6y ago
  Elon Musk appears to like what they said as well: https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865 https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12544950502282608...
  • javagram 6y ago
    Elon’s response since the beginning has been way off, “The coronavirus panic is dumb” (March 6). I guess he doesn’t want to learn from his mistakes. It’s somewhat incredible to see how the “just the flu” crowd doubled down on their views despite the failure of containment in NYC (and high death tolls overseas in the UK and elsewhere) making it clear how many more people would have died if their plan of just letting the virus rip through the entire country had been enacted in March. Regarding the removal of the video from YouTube, i don’t like this. Even though it’s clearly wrong, and is being used to push for something bad, YouTube exercising this type of censorship over legal content worries me.
    • amiantos 6y ago
      I'm not really a fan of the idea that any person (or company) can be compelled to give a platform to someone (or something) they don't want to. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a soapbox, and it certainly doesn't guarantee you the right to someone else's soapbox. It sounds like a strictly emotional argument to suggest that YouTube doesn't have the right to decide what is or isn't allowed on their platform, and it breaks down under any sort of scrutiny. There are all sorts of other "legal" things that you, yourself, would likely draw the line on. To some extent I think using the word "censorship" is disingenuous here as well. No one is censoring this video, they can post the video on their own website wherever they please. Just because you can't post the video on someone else's website doesn't mean you are being censored.
      • javagram 6y ago
        The (dictionary) definition of censorship does include private institutions censoring. For instance, if private libraries remove a book from their shelves because they dislike the contents, that’s absolutely censorship. It’s YouTube’s legal right to remove this, but I do recognize that the more YouTube exercises censorship and editorial judgment over the content, the more likely they are to remove content I like and agree with as well, so that is what concerns me. And I also wonder if removing this specific video might do more harm than good, because it lets the authors cry out that the establishment is censoring them and helps promote their conspiracy-theory-level thinking. In certain cases speech suppression can be very effective, but since powerful elements of US society (e.g. Fox News) are engaging in motivated reasoning to agree with the contents of this video, it could provide an additional plank to convince those who aren’t capable of evaluating the scientific arguments themselves.
• ThisIsTheWay 6y ago
  One of the comments made in the video (referenced in the article as well) is "We always have between 37,000 and 60,000 deaths in the United States, every single year. No pandemic talk. No shelter in place. No shutting down businesses." Since early Feb we've seen ~54K deaths from Coronavirus alone (excluding influenza deaths) [0]. The argument that this is just part of the normal flu cycle doesn't make any sense. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/case...
  • joshuamorton 6y ago
    And that's despite nearly nationwide shelter in place measures. If those hadn't been implemented, the toll could well be an order of magnitude higher.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • shakopeeant 6y ago
      And I guess these guys "could" be right also.
    • JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
      What happens to at-risk people lockdown ends? They could continue to shelter, but if the rest of the world isn't, anybody they make contact with will put them at higher risk due to decreased practice of social distancing.
      • forgot_my_pwd 6y ago
        A natural byproduct of a functioning society has always been otherwise avoidable deaths: car accidents, workplace accidents, flu deaths, etc. The idea that we can hide out until the virus completely disappears is a fantasy. The only sustainable path forward is targeted lockdown and isolation for the most vulnerable along with mustering our energies for testing and treatment.
• amiantos 6y ago
  Just because someone is a “doctor” doesn’t mean they are a reputable, trustworthy source of information. For example, there are doctors who promote the idea that hydrogen peroxide can cure cancer, and that tens of thousands of dollars worth of antibiotics can cure “chronic Lyme disease”. It seems absurd with how hard it is to go to medical school and get a license, but people come out the other side with the same intent to defraud, manipulate, and con people out of their money. But of course people who want to believe what they say will eat it right up and point to their credentials as proof of what they believe.
  • jenny75jenny 6y ago
    Does what you're saying also apply to the "doctors" who work with the WHO and the various levels of government?
  • Apaec 6y ago
    This is really a non-argument, as the WHO is also comprised of "doctors". The belief of dishonesty could be applied both ways.
    • amiantos 6y ago
      In can go both ways, that's right, which is why we tend to trust the larger collection of people who have also done more to verify and support their claims. Two doctors in a YouTube video with anecdotal evidence that contradicts what the rest of the medical establishment says doesn't bode well for their believability.
      • garyfirestorm 6y ago
        True honest belief backed by data that is hard to disprove. We have a million cases and 55k deaths even with shutdowns. Is it that hard to figure out the rest?
      • busymom0 6y ago
        > Two doctors in a YouTube video with anecdotal evidence The video was a news conference from Dr. Dan Erickson, who along with Dr. Artin Massihi, own the largest COVID testing site in Kern County, Accelerated Urgent Care, California. They have done more than half the testing there. It wasn't some random joe making claims.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• DanBC 6y ago
  Here's a useful twitter thread that talks about mistakes these doctors made: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1254481543759683584?s=20 https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1254481543759683584?... > What they did was simple: they looked at the fraction of patients who tested positive for #COVID19 at the clinics they own. They found 340 out of 5213 tests were postive, about 6.6% > Then they assume the same fraction of the whole population are infected.
  • lurquer 6y ago
    That was an obvious error in their reasoning. Not surprising, though. Idiotic (and, yes, such an error IS idiotic) fumbling with statistics is displayed on a daily basis. It doesn't matter what 'side' you are on: idiots abound. Doomer fallacies: Charts showing exponential growth of positives, without taking into account the exponential growth of tests... Flu-Bro fallacies: Antibody surveys that don't take into account false positives and make no mention of the expected number of positives in a population (both needed to make ANY sense of the results.) Doomer fallacies: No distinction between dying 'with' versus dying 'from'. Flu-Bro fallacies: Relying on death counts from the Chinese Communist Party. Doomer fallacies: Comparing 'positive' test rates between populations and countries with utterly different criteria for administering tests. etc. One thing you can count on, though: You will usually get a downvote on Hacker News if you deviate from the mainstream.
    • alexpetralia 6y ago
      Yes I have historically found many doctors to not understand basic statistics, which has somewhat surprised me.
    • chimprich 6y ago
      > One thing you can count on, though: You will usually get a downvote on Hacker News if you deviate from the mainstream. Previously you were in a discussion with me arguing with great confidence that the virus outbreak would be a distant memory in two months. I just looked it up; it was 61 days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434499 You were using terms like "chicken littles" then. I'm all for reading different viewpoints, but if you're going to throw around insults like "doomer", you're not likely to get a civilised discussion going.
• Psyladine 6y ago
  "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
• imustbeevil 6y ago
  > "If you study the numbers in 2017 and 2018, we had 50 to 60 million with the flu," Erickson said. "And we had a similar death rate in the deaths the United States were 43,545" For comparison, 1 million Americans (50x less) have had covid, and so far 59,225 have died (1.4x more) [0]. Their conclusion is that this is no worse than the flu, even though those numbers show it being more than 60x more deadly. edit: Bringing this up from lower discussion: Even if you assume 10x more cases than reported, with 2x observed excess deaths [1], that's 10 million people sick and 100,000 dead; 5x less people sick and 2.5x more people dead than the flu. [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-death-toll-undercounted/?arc404=true https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/cov...
  • htk 6y ago
    Confirmed cases are not the total number of cases.
    • imustbeevil 6y ago
      Yeah sorry I only have access to data that exists, as mentioned in the original comment. Weird how no one who brings up under-reported cases has any opinion about under-reported deaths, since the insinuation you're making is that there are statistically more unreported cases than deaths. That seems like a claim you may want to justify.
      • orangecat 6y ago
        the insinuation you're making is that there are statistically more unreported cases than deaths. That seems like a claim you may want to justify. Find any serious expert who does not believe that. Estimates have always been that cases are underreported by 10-20x, and that's consistent with recent serology tests.
        • imustbeevil 6y ago
• gmfawcett 6y ago
  This is lazy reporting. It's not wrong, but there's no insight here. No critical assessment of the claims made in the video nor the Youtube T&C, just a few clickbaity excerpts and some reaction comments. Compare with this excellent piece by the CBC on a somewhat similar viral video in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/u-of-r-biology-prof-draws-ire-of-sask-scientists-1.5541748 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/u-of-r-biology-p...
  • isoskeles 6y ago
    Is CBC known to question the position of Canadian government, especially the majority opinion there? They are a state-owned entity, as far as I know, but I'm not Canadian so I know little about how independently they operate.
    • grecy 6y ago
      Like the British BBC and the Australian ABC, (and more?), the CBC is at arms length from the currently serving government, and was setup intentionally to be independent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation#Mandate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporat...
      • octodog 6y ago
        Australians trust the ABC more than any other media outlets by quite a large margin too.
        • cycomanic 6y ago
          One of the reasons why the liberals (the Australian Conservative party) have been trying to gut and defund them. They are much happier with the murdoch press, who had headlines like "vote this bastards out" (don't remember the exact phrase but it was direct like that) as a headline some years ago arguing to vote out the Labour government. It's always interesting to see how some people always argue that news sources should be neutral and report only on facts if there are some left leaning opinions published, but completely ignore the blatant electioneering that goes on in the murdoch press.
• JPKab 6y ago
  I completely disagree with most of what the doctors in the video are saying. However I really really don't like YouTube removing content like this.
  • milemi 6y ago
    I really really like it, just like I really really like what's his name being deplatformed. I like it even more that I can't readily remember his name, right, Alex Jones. YouTube has no duty to be a platform for Diamond and Silk in scrubs.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • strken 6y ago
      It has no legal duty to be a platform, nor to deplatform. It arguably has moral duties: to facilitate free discussion, and to remove harmful material. In this case there's a clear clash between the two that will make a lot of readers nervous.
      • techntoke 6y ago
        Why does it have the moral duty, when you signed it away in the TOS when you used their service? Host your own videos if you don't like it or better yet build a better platform that is censorship-resistant.
        • milemi 6y ago
          A reminder that people have tried that, and it invariably turns into a chan. Which is what YouTube would become if it went hands-off.
        • sergiotapia 6y ago
          HONK HONKs love saying this tripe line everywhere online, but whenever someone tries and gains traction The Cancel Squad deplatforms them through their incestuous in-group.
• runawaybottle 6y ago
  This edges a little close to state media. Of course it’s not the same, but if the guiding philosophy is ‘we cannot trust the public with certain information, for it’s own good’, then we’ve adopted whatever the hell they do in non-free countries. Very bad precedent, very Un-American. Edit: As an arrogant American, I forgot to consider that this might be a global Youtube policy.
  • dwaltrip 6y ago
    No, it edges closer to Youtube being a publisher that controls or curates the content that is available on their platform.
    • runawaybottle 6y ago
      That’s like saying the MTA is some independent platform that New Yorkers can choose to use or not use. Another example would be saying cable companies that have a monopoly over your region (once upon a time) provide real choice to customers that want to switch. Youtube is the de facto video platform that the masses use, so much so that Youtube finds it necessary to enact something like this. To bring it back to your point - If we don’t like YouTube’s policies, we can’t just simply ignore Youtube and move on from it. How it controls things is a big deal, especially if it is similar to how non-free governments censor stuff. We have to be vigilant of this, it ain’t some niche video site.
      • dwaltrip 6y ago
        Perhaps you are right, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you are presenting. I'm not sure what the correct answer is.
      • jhanschoo 6y ago
        There's a difference between YT and a monopoly that matters in the law. You aren't paying anything to use or consume YT, no matter if you're a viewer or a content creator. It sounds like the ones who have standing are the advertisers, and I think advertisers would be fine with YT being more curated.
• axguscbklp 6y ago
  I wonder why Google's decision-makers decided to censor stuff that doesn't follow WHO guidelines. Is it because they actually care about the mass of the population? Is it because they want to minimize the economic damage caused by the crisis? Is it because they're scared to get sick themselves? Is it because they want to avoid possible legal liability? Is it due to political pressure on them? Is it because they want to exploit the crisis for reasons of politics and social engineering? Some combination of the above?
  • saltedonion 6y ago
    Because dominant media platforms have a huge crosshairs on their backs, with different groups criticizing they aren’t doing enough to remove misinformation, and at the same time, they are too heavy handed. The consensus is that the platforms have to do SOMETHING, because if not, it becomes a national security issue and regulation is going sweep through the industry. At the same time, the platforms can’t be seen as enforcing government censorship, so they choose WHO, an independent international organization as the information fact checker. Who knows, maybe they also want to win some brownie points with china. I wouldn’t be surprised.
    • busymom0 6y ago
      WHO isn't independent. They have been looking out for China's talking points for a while.
      • themacguffinman 6y ago
        Sure, but the WHO is still ostensibly a global organization that dispenses credible medical advice. Whatever I may think of the WHO, I'm not sure what org could possibly be a better choice to follow for a multinational service.
      • saltedonion 6y ago
        Precisely, hence the brownie points from China.
    • 6y ago
• fasteddie31003 6y ago
  I wish one reporter in that room would have pointed out that there was no random sample. But it is very disturbing that YouTube pulled it down. Classic Barbra Streisand effect.
  • shkkmo 6y ago
    There was a guy that tries to sort of bring it up when the doctor first starts talking about the New York numbers, but he doesn't do a very good job and the doctor just sort of claims that the sample bias doesn't matter because the sample size is large.
• ghthor 6y ago
  It's important that during these unprecedented times of censorship that we all know how to use youtube-dl
  • increment_i 6y ago
    Now I do agree wholeheartedly, but the First Rule of youtube-dl is: You Do Not talk about youtube-dl.
  • walterbell 6y ago
    How to download the comments for video? Or the "live chat" on some videos?
    • beart 6y ago
      Honest question - what longtime value is there to youtube comments? The way these are structured seems to inherently make them useless.
      • walterbell 6y ago
        If they are downloaded, they can be indexed by various parameters.
• bofadeez 6y ago
  It's literally terrifying that they removed this video. Someone uploaded a copy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25m0fm2LSIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25m0fm2LSIg
  • deminature 6y ago
    They said they're culling misinformation and they're doing it. I don't see what's terrifying about this. Maybe unsettling if you're aggressively pro-free speech, but 'terrifying' is very hyperbolic.
    • downerending 6y ago
      Your comment seems like misinformation to me. Surely HN should take it down.
    • runawaybottle 6y ago
      Take one afternoon of your time and just google information on how China identifies videos on their platforms for a variety of reasons and pulls them. Heck, if you make a dumb enough video saying certain things in China, they’ll pull it and give you a little visit. It’s a super slippery slope once you decide ‘we have to do this because we need to protect the public, we know better’. Here is a larger scenario. I personally think a lab oversight in the Wuhan region could have led to a virus outbreak, enough to at least discuss it. This theory could be deemed by WHO, which could be heavily influenced by Chinese investment, to be lies. With YouTube’s blanket policy, they would be doing the Chinese government’s bidding by getting rid of this lab virus narrative from Youtube (all under the guise of following WHO guidelines). Anyway, you cannot censor based on an organization or a government’s guidelines.
    • sneak 6y ago
      What’s terrifying about this is that this is the one you heard about. It’s like seeing two bugs in your house: are there 20 more, or 20,000 more? The insidious part about sometimes-censorship is that it is invisible and deniable. Everyone knows the press in China or under the USSR is/was censored 24/7. YouTube is only censored sometimes. It’s like a seatbelt that works every day except the day you crash (emergencies/crises are the times when open and free communications systems are most critical to the functioning of society). I believe this poses an existential threat to a free society, because everyone flocks to these censorship platforms in peacetime, and they pose a mortal danger in war/crisis. I wrote at length about this failure mode recently: https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/ https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/
• threatofrain 6y ago
  > We're actually seeing the patients. Dr. Fauci hasn't seen a patient for 20 years... it's like the general contractor vs the sub. He's not seeing patients, he's in an ivory tower, and we have a world of respect for him, he's a world reknown immunologist, two different, he's an academic, and we've dealt with academics all of our lives... but academics and reality are two different things. > Coronavirus lasts on plastics for 3 days, and we're all sheltering in place. Where'd you get your water bottles from? Costco. Where'd you get that plastic shovel from? Home Depot. Those are fomites and carries of disease... and if I swab things in your home, I would likely find COVID-19. > When you go to Del Taco and you get a plastic bag or piece on your burrito from someone not wearing a mask who's just wiping their arm on your thing, do you think you're protected from COVID? > We wear masks in an acute setting to protect us. We're not wearing masks, why is that? 'Cuz we understand microbiology, we understand immunology, and we want strong immune systems. I don't want to hide in my home, develop a weak immune system, and come out and get diseased. > Is the flu less dangerous than COVID? Let's look at the death rates, no it's not. They're similar in prevalence and in death rate. So we're saying that our response now, now that we know the facts, it's time to get back to work, it's time to test people. But again, testing gives you a moment in time...
  • nikolay 6y ago
    If these are "doctors", I don't want them to treat me! ER is a different kind of health care! ER doctors are not virologists or epidemiologists. So, to use their own example, you don't want a plumber to do your roof!
    • balls187 6y ago
      Apparently, they own a private Urgent Care center.
      • nikolay 6y ago
        Yeah, and the clinic is in the remote Bakersfield, California, not yet affected by the epidemic [0] - many fail to notice that important fact! [0]: https://kernpublichealth.com/covid-19_dashboard/ https://kernpublichealth.com/covid-19_dashboard/
• dangus 6y ago
  A reminder that The Blaze is a conservative mouthpiece founded by Glenn Beck. I’m astounded at the number of comments here that don’t seem to be considering that. The article is not worth clicking on based on that fact alone. It may or may not be factual, but we can rest assured that it’s written in service of a very specific agenda. That agenda is the typical “we are being silenced” message pushed by the regressive, extremist conservative faction of the Republican Party.
  • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    You don't think it's worth reading the article just because you don't agree with the author's politics?
    • dangus 6y ago
      That is correct. That’s how reputation works. Trusting Glenn Beck to report news to me would be like trusting Disney press releases for all my info on copyright law.
  • RickJWagner 6y ago
    Are you equally aggravated by news items from far left sources? It's understandable to prefer one side over the other. But ignore your least favorite side at your intellectual peril.
    • dangus 6y ago
      Absolutely. Yes, I am. I don’t listen to people like Bill Maher, either, nor TV sensationalists like Jake Tapper. I would prefer this country mostly get back to being centrist. I would prefer we not continually be pitched against each other in a left vs right battle that’s encouraged by the elite class (including middle-men profiteers like Glenn Beck that earn based on outrage).
      • busymom0 6y ago
        I doubt that. Unless you consider the far left sources to be moderate.
• anigbrowl 6y ago
  Blaze media is an overtly ideological outlet. In my experience when any such outlet (regardless of the particular persuasion) makes a headline out of a 'viral' video or social media post, it's as part of a structured social media campaign: put the media up, drive some traffic to it, run a story about how it's 'going viral' leveraging people's preference for social proof, and so on. With anything where there's significant political, economic, or social capital riding on the outcome, astroturfing is a sad reality that must be considered. One way to mitigate its effects is to look for reports from some disinterested source and see if you can find the same facts presented with less urgency and the determination of significance being left to the reader.
  • TechBro8615 6y ago
    Here is a link to the news site which originally uploaded the press conference to YouTube, along with a statement from YouTube, and re-hosted version of the video: https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-with-dr-dan-erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi-taken-down-from-youtube https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-wi... Hopefully this solves your problem with the “overtly ideological outlet.” (Edit: originally had copy pasted wrong link)
    • JKCalhoun 6y ago
      "Overtly idealogical" doesn't have to mean falsehoods, it can also mean selecting only content that reinforces a specific narrative.
• sergiotapia 6y ago
  Are you OK with Google and other coorporations curating The Truth? Think about your kids! Do you want these people shaping what your children think? Put your money where your mouth is. Stop using them. The time has come for a youtube alternative that can scale and is decentralized. https://lbry.tv/Dr.-Erickson-COVID-19-Briefing:e1 https://lbry.tv/Dr.-Erickson-COVID-19-Briefing:e1
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• foolinaround 6y ago
  Youtube has actually been censoring content it does not agree with for quite a while, and unless it hurts us in some personal way, we have been ok with it getting away. eg., Youtube has been censoring a lot of conservative content. They won in court[1] Youtube cannot have it both ways. Either they are a publisher and if so, must be fully responsible for the content they host. Or they are a platform, and they need to be neutral. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-google-censor-court-prageru-first-amendment-2020-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-google-censor-court-...
  • mikekchar 6y ago
    Out of curiosity, has there ever been a case where a government has demanded that Youtube remove a video and it has not done so? I may be wrong, but I actually believe that they are fully responsible for the content that they are carrying. They do actually go to considerable lengths to remove content that they think is in violation of their terms of service as promptly as they can. I don't believe they are required by any law to review every submission for possible problems; only to remove content that they are aware is not compliant. I believe they do that. If they don't, I'm sure some enterprising lawyer could fashion a lucrative class action suit. It's not like they aren't sitting on a mountain of cash. Just to be clear, they are not a common carrier and I have never seen any evidence that they claim to be one. I don't think they have to both ways. I understand (and have sympathy with the idea) that it would be nice if they were, but I really don't think they are.
  • akersten 6y ago
    > Youtube cannot have it both ways. Either they are a publisher and if so, must be fully responsible for the content they host. Or they are a platform, and they need to be neutral. As demonstrated by the court case you mention, that is false. I am surprised how tightly people cling to this notion, which has no basis in reality.
    • foolinaround 6y ago
      can you please be clearer? What is false? Do you think youtube is a platform? even, a monopoly of sorts?
• kyle_martin1 6y ago
  What do you expect out of a woke monopoly? If there were an alternative that valued free-speech I’d ditch YouTube.
  • TechBro8615 6y ago
    I’ve seen people in conservative forums using BitChute. I’m not super familiar with it, but it’s somehow peer to peer. Streamable also seems to be popular.
• 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  Now it is more important than ever to choose alternatives for YouTube. Vote with your wallet by refusing to use their platform, or if you do, use adblocking so they bleed financially.
• victorbstan 6y ago
  The problem with with freedom to just post whatever by whoever, even if with credentials (perhaps more so) is that it can influence people in the wrong way, before it is criticized or debunked. Even so, there is ample evidence that plenty of people take any info that supports their point or worldview and stick with it and repeat it, even after it has been critiqued or shown to be wrong, etc. So I don’t think complete freedom of speech is a good thing. You have to consider the negative effects, as long as there are negative effects, you can’t say it’s unanimously “good”. That being said, there already is a channel for Doctors and researchers to publish: peer reviewed journals. Key words here “peer review”, this is when other professionals in your field of research review your work. And it’s not youtube or a blog post or social media. The fact that they went around the peer review process should Make you suspicious about their agenda.
  • alexfromapex 6y ago
    The Internet needs a novel way of establishing legitimacy since it’s much harder to verify things seen online. I don’t know the solution but it seems salient in today’s world where there’s so many fake news articles, etc. used to influence the public for the sake of private interests.
• walterbell 6y ago
  We need to ask about the unprecedented censorship at this time: what is At Stake? Is Google planning a new healthcare division that is invested in specific viewpoints? For decades, the US has provided the average citizen with limited/no healthcare but freedom of speech and thought. In sudden weeks, this has been inverted. What is the prize hidden in the party cracker which justifies censorship of speech and thought with the (implausible six months ago) claim by social media companies to care about the health and wellness of the average person?
  • willis936 6y ago
    The prize of reducing the scenario where a tiny minority of people can legally cause the deaths of thousands of people if their fantasies are fed by the media they seek.
    • walterbell 6y ago
      We have laws for murder. And for constitutional protection of speech. It's even more ludicrous that the alleged crime is statistics. Meanwhile, Imperial College statistical models were proven wrong almost immediately by Oxford University, but they are still allowed to speak after triggering hasty decisions that affected millions of lives. We are leaving unaccountable the people who literally yelled "Fire!!" to billions of people, but it's suddenly imperative to suppress speech that informs collective decisions that are complex, regional and contextual? What does Google have against learning? It would take little effort to prepend a correction to the original video and/or publish a revised version. This is Hacker News: surprise, someone is wrong on the internet! They get corrected. It's better than being wrong offline and never being corrected.
      • willis936 6y ago
        Constitutional protection of speech does not force non-governmental entities to grant a platform of speech to anyone. Nobody is saying they have a crystal ball, but everyone is making decisions to minimize damage to society, including private platforms.
• 0xff00ffee 6y ago
  The number of people in this thread defending the right to spread billionaire-funded lies, propaganda, and misinformation under the guise of free-speech is drop-dead astonishing. Like, I can see why civilization could fail on a massive scale if a critical mass of the population starts to believe the opposite of the truth, and declares war on those trying to explain.
  • kolanos 6y ago
    Are you referring to Bill Gates?
    • 0xff00ffee 6y ago
      One side wants to help people, the other side wants to punish people. It is very clear from your post history that you are the "I got mine fuck you" breed of conservatism that has corrupted the US for the past 40 years. You are the enemy.
      • Clubber 6y ago
        I don't think either side wants to help people, other than their donors.
        • 0xff00ffee 6y ago
          I guess if you go through life with your eyes closed, or only listening to one side, then I can see how you'd think that. There's no place to start with someone as ignorant as you. Literally, I could list all of the ways the US left has helped improved the quality of living, and all the ways the US right has actively hurt people and you'd shrug and still spout the same ignorant comments. So all I have left for you and your type is contempt. Utter contempt.
          • Clubber 6y ago
            >Literally, I could list all of the ways the US left has helped improved the quality of living Yes, please list the ways the left has helped improve the quality of living for the US. I'd prefer the list only be things that occurred this century. Lip service doesn't count either. Sanders is the only one I can think of that's done anything, and The Party shut him out twice.
• cowholio4 6y ago
  Not only were they completely wrong with their numbers, they even were wrong in their assessment of Fauci. They said they “are actually seeing the patients, Dr Fauci hasn’t seen a patient in 20 years.” In 2015, Dr Fauci personally helped take care of an Ebola patient when most of the world was terrified of Ebola. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/why-nihs-anthony-fauci-treating-ebola-patients-himself https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/why-nihs-anthony-fau...
  • blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    Suppose you're right. Does it justify censorship? Fauci can defend himself, and the docs are welcome to express their opinions. What gives Google/YouTube the justification to silence them?
    • aliminator8 6y ago
      YouTube has the right to censor anything it likes. It's their platform. If you don't like it, don't use YouTube.
      • crazy1van 6y ago
        > It's their platform But the real question is at what level of censorship to the cease to be a platform and become a publisher?
      • dilap 6y ago
        Should they have that right though? YouTube is owned by a Google, a massive, publicly-traded corporation with near-monopoly power. Are the best interests of society served by allowing it to be governed in an authoritarian, totalitarian fashion, or would it make sense, considering it is one of the most powerful mediums of speech ever created, to let it be governed by rules somewhat approximating the much-lauded, traditional, western liberal values of free speech?
        • balls187 6y ago
• ivanstame 6y ago
  Sorry for unpopular opinion but the whole world has gone nuts with corona. Stop spreading fake news and creating panic. Why censoring...
  • xtracto 6y ago
    I'll tell you, I got the virus and it is no laughing matter. I got it at the end of February, and these almost 8 weeks have been some of the worst time in my life (and I was in the hospital as a kid for an accident where I lost a body part, and later in life I had a chronic anal fissure for more than 3 years) . Coronavirus is nasty, I'm still not recovered and feeling my lungs I am afraid I'll have permanent sequels. I'm 39 y old non smoker , non overweight and with decent activity (10,000 daily steps before this hit me). I would do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent people from experiencing this. Specially my family. Given how contagious it is I am afraid society is not doing enough at the current panic level... I hope you dont have to directly or indirectly suffer it.
    • lonelappde 6y ago
      Everything? Would you jail people who challenge the official government statements?
• lonelappde 6y ago
  If you want to keep a video with fake medical advice up on YouTube, go the Epoch Times or Homeopathy route and just buy ads.
• bobrenjc93 6y ago
  Elon seems to think the "docs make good points" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865
  • foepys 6y ago
    Billionaire CEO of automotive company thinks quarantine should end to get people out of their houses and drive somewhere. More at 11. Can we please stop quoting Musk everywhere? He's not a medical expert and just want people to buy his cars and pump his stocks.
• throwawaysea 6y ago
  The fact that YouTube will remove any video for its content should concern everyone. It is especially bad because YouTube has effectively made public agencies like the WHO control what views and opinions are permissible when those same agencies have been late or wrong numerous times just during this coronavirus crisis. Reddit quarantining or banning various subreddits, Facebook deleting protest events, Medium censoring/deleting covid posts, are all signs of big tech becoming untrustworthy authoritarian rulers of a digital public square that only has a few at its helm. We need decentralization, and we need it now. We need to also reconsider competition laws so this stale cartel of tech companies can be challenged.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• chvid 6y ago
  Curious that this video gets removed given that YouTube is chuck full of COVID19 videos that are wrong, dangerous, racist (often at the same time), some with millions of views, all fully covered in random advertisement.
• blackrock 6y ago
  Come on folks. There is no magic to this. The science is already known by now. Lock down hard for 4 weeks (or 28 days). The virus only has a safe maximum 21 day incubation period (the normal is 14 days). By that point, you will know who is infected. Get them isolated. You don’t need to do any blood tests, or PCR tests, or MRI tests. Get everyone’s temperature taken daily, like a census. For those that are showing signs of a fever, you isolate them in a LEVEL 1, general population makeshift ward. For those that have more severe cases, like difficulty breathing, you isolate them in a LEVEL 2 quarantine zone. For those that need hospitalization and invasive intubation, they go into the LEVEL 3 zone and get ICU care. Every state can set up multiple cities and regions for these facilities. Transport the sick people to the given area, so that they can get the care they need. Then transport them home, when they are recovered. This sounds expensive, but it sure as hell, is far cheaper than the $4 Trillion to $10 Trillion dollar bailouts, that the Republicans are handing out to their buddies, like candies. Can you imagine? Trump just got another $569 Million [1] for his wall. Sneaky bastard. How does this even help fight the coronavirus? By keeping out infected Mexicans? (Well.. maybe..) For everyone else, they must stay at home. Groceries will need to be pre-packaged, and delivered to them. Or they drive up to the grocery store to pick it up, and someone drops it into their trunk, with minimal human contact. All of the infections in the community must be happening at supermarkets, or public buses, subways, trains, and airplanes. Places where there is minimal ventilation happening, and you can walk into someone’s death cloud, or breath in their infected air. And make everyone wear masks. The basic transmission science is already known. Now, we need to just do a hard 4 week lockdown and make it happen. [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/sorry-hospitals-trumps-border-wall-is-getting-another-half-billion-dollars https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/sorry-hospitals-trum...
• beart 6y ago
  I don't understand the censorship claims when you can freely watch this video online right now.
• ColanR 6y ago
  It's too bad that we are so quick to silence those who we perceive as wrong. Apparently, the doctors in the video were using incorrect facts; I wouldn't know, the video is gone. Discussion is being prohibited, wherever there is an approved expert to say the viewpoint is wrong. If dissention is labelled dangerous, and dissenting voices on important subjects are silenced, then we are creating an echo chamber with no respect for anyone but those who accept the perspective of the majority. How will we ever discover if the official message is wrong?
  • zaarn 6y ago
    LiveLeak will probably not take it down, they can go elsewhere.
  • zouhair 6y ago
    It's with your logic that we have the anti-vax movement, the anti-gmo one, flat-earthers and so on and so forth.
    • teh_infallible 6y ago
      Do you feel threatened by voices you disagree with? Aren’t dissenting voices and debate pillars of our democracy?
      • James_Henry 6y ago
        Perhaps people feel like these dissenting voices are threatening the pillars of our democracy!
        • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
          Dissent is a pillar of democracy.
          • James_Henry 6y ago
            What are the other pillars and what if one dissents against them? I'm not saying that's happening here, but not all dissent is tolerable, no?
• 54351623 6y ago
  If this was only about getting the information out, then they would have just uploaded the video to a separate video hosting site. Instead they are complaining about how one site is attempting to ensure potential misinformation about a poorly understood virus isn't spread using said platform. The fact that the narrative of personal liberties is being focused on this while millions of poorly paid workers are forced to choose between homelessness and putting themselves at risk is a cruel joke. I can't imagine this is anything except narrative manipulation and not about presenting an accurate portrayal of the erosion of personal liberties.
• cycomanic 6y ago
  The problem with unrestricted free speach is that it's not the person who is right who is heard, but the person who has the biggest pockets. It becomes even easier if the message is a simple answer to a complex problem. The noise with deep pocket can just drown out the voice of reason. So it ends in the right of the strongest.
• gerash 6y ago
  The video is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2QMkS5Ftw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2QMkS5Ftw
• KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
  The idea that online platforms owe us a right to free speech makes sense because there are so few platforms left online where one can speak. If we had 10 competing video hosting platforms rather than one, I think it would have been great if each of them exercised its own editorial policies, and in fact such policies would have been a competitive differentiating factor. Unfortunately, since we have only one Facebook and only one YouTube and only one Google, every editorial decision that they make immediately puts them in hot water.
• ruckadub 6y ago
  If you want all the answers about this PLANdemic and how fauci has threatened doctors lives and silenced top NIH doctors, research DR JUDY MIKOVITS. Her book plague of corruption explains it all. Fauci had her gag ordered and never charged, for taking her own research as evidence of their coverup. She isolated HIV, she was leading NIH For 20 years. She discovered cures for cancer and aids and found aids isn’t caused by HIV but XMRV which you haven’t heard of because that was what was suppressed . Fauci did this in 81 already with HIV, stealing her work then changing it,’and fauci having a vaccine and patent on it years before they announced HIV. Fauci literally threatened to kill them. She explains how viruses don’t transfer in air. Masks make it worse because you self infect yourself while lowering your immune system. You can only get a virus through injection. External things can manifest a virus that’s dormant from 5g to pollution to drinking soda. That flu shots given included all of these diseases including contagious cancers. All smear campaigns on her were redacted and she has all the evidence. She is literally the key to this whole thing. She talks about breaking down when she sees fauci on tv speaking on corona. She is literally the authority on viruses Covid 19 is 40 years in the making and is connected to her work. If you really care about the truth research her and spread the word.
• togo 6y ago
  i personally believe that freedom of info it's my right, i decide what i believe is true and what's fake or a lie, it's not for you tube to tell me what i should believe or just feed me what they consider to be true not the gov. just the fact that they gave themselves that job tells me that they are trying hard to make me believe what they consider right, true, correct, or in my best interest, which in my Case it's the opposite, there gov. business, is, has been, and always will be TO LIE TO THE PEOPLE OR US, AND THE MEDIA THEY CONTROL, WELL... COMMON, IS JUST IDIOTIC TO BELIEVE OTHER WISE, AND TRYING TO DEFEND YOU TUBE, IT'S LIKE SAYING THAT YOU TUBE IS BEEN NOTHING BUT GOOD, TRUTHFUL, NEVER MISTAKEN, common people, use your own head and come to your own conclusions, that's why we are were we are in caos thinking that the gov is trying to protect us and the news media are telling dinner truth and want to help us!! you need to be a real idiot to still think or believe that.
• tgafpc2 6y ago
  Listen to the medical experts! No, not those medical experts!
• heddon 6y ago
  You make the excuse to remove the video with no actual proof that this is dangerous misinformation. In fact, YouTube, and the media are the real danger.The biggest threat to Americans in the history of all.