5 ms·

Why does the UW doctor's opinion supercede that of the doctors in the removed videos? The answer of course is ideology. These are two experts giving two differ

Why does the UW doctor's opinion supercede that of the doctors in the removed videos? The answer of course is ideology. These are two experts giving two different opinions based on different sets of similarly poor evidence. The fact that a doctor goes against consensus does not necessarily mean he's wrong and it certainly does not warrant censorship, all else considered. Youtube is making a dangerous mistake.

shkkmo 6y ago
> The fact that a doctor goes against consensus does not necessarily mean he's wrong and it certainly does not warrant censorship, all else considered. It's not the unpopularity of the views of the doctors in the video that makes them wrong, it is their complete misapplication of statistics. The analogy of “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” is very apt. It may not mean that they should be censored, but at a minimum they deserve to be called out and ridiculed.
reagank 6y ago
It has nothing to do with opinions, and it has nothing to do with ideology, except insofar as these two doctors were motivated by their ideology to profoundly misunderstand or misrepresent statistical sampling. It’s not one side thinks this, the other side thinks that, it’s that their video is factually wrong, and in being wrong encourages dangerous behavior.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  That's why you should always get a second opinion.
- twomoretime 6y ago
  Really? Are you really so arrogant as to ignore that YouTube is far more likely to be making an ideological decision here? An expert made a statement. YouTube went out of its way to find a doctor who supported YouTube's ideological slant and used that as justification for taking action. This obliviousness. This is why we must restrict power. This is why we can't have nice things.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    What makes these two doctors experts in epidemiology and statistics?
    - twomoretime 6y ago
      Do you really trust YouTube to make that decision? That's the whole point. I'm not actually interested in the credentials on either side - merely pointing out that YouTube is doing far more harm than good in choosing a side. Society would be far better off without their curation.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        No, you claimed "an expert made a statement". I want to clarify. No expert made a statement on youtube. Two nonexperts made statements, and Youtube removed them, presumably at the behest of experts (like the WHO, whom youtube is using to set guidelines on removable content).
        twomoretime 6y ago
        A doctor on the frontlines is an expert. He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology, but his credentials are sufficient that the difference between credibility between the scientists and the doctors is too small for youtube to reliably choose one over the other. YouTube is not an accreditation agency or an arbiter of credibility. YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus. The fact that this particular decision agrees with what the majority of us think is right doesn't mean that YouTube is right to choose.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology Exactly, so he should not be speaking on epidemiology. And it's even more dangerous because people, like you, believe he could be an expert. > YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus. But the WHO does.

shkkmo 6y ago

> The fact that a doctor goes against consensus does not necessarily mean he's wrong and it certainly does not warrant censorship, all else considered. It's not the unpopularity of the views of the doctors in the video that makes them wrong, it is their complete misapplication of statistics. The analogy of “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” is very apt. It may not mean that they should be censored, but at a minimum they deserve to be called out and ridiculed.

reagank 6y ago

It has nothing to do with opinions, and it has nothing to do with ideology, except insofar as these two doctors were motivated by their ideology to profoundly misunderstand or misrepresent statistical sampling. It’s not one side thinks this, the other side thinks that, it’s that their video is factually wrong, and in being wrong encourages dangerous behavior.

Fjolsvith 6y ago
That's why you should always get a second opinion.
twomoretime 6y ago
Really? Are you really so arrogant as to ignore that YouTube is far more likely to be making an ideological decision here? An expert made a statement. YouTube went out of its way to find a doctor who supported YouTube's ideological slant and used that as justification for taking action. This obliviousness. This is why we must restrict power. This is why we can't have nice things.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  What makes these two doctors experts in epidemiology and statistics?
  - twomoretime 6y ago
    Do you really trust YouTube to make that decision? That's the whole point. I'm not actually interested in the credentials on either side - merely pointing out that YouTube is doing far more harm than good in choosing a side. Society would be far better off without their curation.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      No, you claimed "an expert made a statement". I want to clarify. No expert made a statement on youtube. Two nonexperts made statements, and Youtube removed them, presumably at the behest of experts (like the WHO, whom youtube is using to set guidelines on removable content).
      - twomoretime 6y ago
        A doctor on the frontlines is an expert. He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology, but his credentials are sufficient that the difference between credibility between the scientists and the doctors is too small for youtube to reliably choose one over the other. YouTube is not an accreditation agency or an arbiter of credibility. YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus. The fact that this particular decision agrees with what the majority of us think is right doesn't mean that YouTube is right to choose.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        > He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology Exactly, so he should not be speaking on epidemiology. And it's even more dangerous because people, like you, believe he could be an expert. > YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus. But the WHO does.