11 ms·

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

• 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
        > Should they have that right though? Yes. Free speech does not grant the right for anyone to say whatever they want. The US Surpreme court has, as a matter of case law, ruled in specific areas to restrict free speech. These two doctors, under the pretense of medical expertise, provided false information, and used Youtube to do it. Google being a large massive publicly traded entity does not have any bearing as to it's responsibility to guard against violations on it's platform.
        • Gibbon1 6y ago
          The way I think of it is. Say my company makes high voltage transformers. And I get wind that one customer is using them to manufacture interrogation devices. I sure as shit can tell them to take their business elsewhere.
          • Dylan16807 6y ago
            But if you're selling electricity you generally don't get to refuse service to anyone.
            • balls187 6y ago
              Google doesn't sell ip packets.
              • Gibbon1 6y ago
                Also much of the world right now is operating under a state of emergency.
        • JackFr 6y ago
          > These two doctors, under the pretense of medical expertise, provided false information, and used Youtube to do it. Not according to the article. The local TV station interviewed them and the local TV station put the video on YouTube. Presumably as they are licensed to practice medicine in the State of California they do have some expertise greater than those of us without MDs so it's hardly 'pretense'. Is wearing scrubs on camera a ridiculous rhetorical device? Yes. Were these guys wrong on some facts? Absolutely. Were they wrong on policy recommendations? Much, much harder to say. What's astonishing though is the ease with which people seem to be willing to turn over their civil liberties and place themselves under house arrest. We have to sit through three years of the echo chamber telling us Donald Trump is a fascist, and then finally when our freedom to assemble is literally stripped from us by the police power of the state, people are complaining that he's not fascist enough. Geez.
    • GuiA 6y ago
      I look forward to a world where platforms are less afraid to kick off the voices they don’t like. The world would be better with 50 YouTubes rather than just one.
      • RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        If there were 50 YouTubes, that would be amazing. I wouldn't care ONE BIT if someone got kicked off RandomTube. It'd be hard to argue that their voice was being silenced. The 2nd player to YouTube, however, is a very distant second. YouTube has the power to decide if billions see a message. That's.... a power most governments would salivate to have. Personally I feel like the perspective that "they're privately owned so they can do what they want" while technically true, intentionally and dishonestly misses the point.
    • dredmorbius 6y ago
      There are arguments that don't involve "private property, absolute authority" which permit both some censorship (in the public interest), and some guarantees of access most especially to under-served, unprivileged, and minority viewpoints (also in the public interest). That argument is public interest.
    • dependenttypes 6y ago
      Just like a bakery has the right to refuse service to whoever they feel like, it is their shop after all, right? Anyway, they may be able to legally do what they want but this is not a free "get out of jail" card against any criticism.
    • camccar 6y ago
      Bitchute is getting really nice and they don't censor stuff like this. I personally recommend it.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • Barrin92 6y ago
    >What gives Google/YouTube the justification to silence them? The fact that it is their platform. >Fauci can defend himself, Fauci is a 79 year old man busy working 20 hours a day trying to stop more people from dying, he doesn't have the time to debunk garbage on the internet. Youtube is completely within their rights to remove dangerous disinformation from their platform and I hope they take an agressive stance going forward.
    • dapf 6y ago
      YouTube gets a tax exemption because it has "public forum" status, which puts some restrictions on them, basically they cannot censor anything they want, they must uphold free speech. So, they cannot have their cake and eat it. https://youtu.be/d6C6_NVj964 https://youtu.be/d6C6_NVj964
      • snowwrestler 6y ago
        Do not believe everything you see on YouTube.
      • iancarroll 6y ago
        YouTube is most certainly not tax exempt. Section 230 is about liability for user-generated content. And that video is a dubious interpretation of it, at best.
    • thdrdt 6y ago
      I know it's their platform so they can do what they want. But why not show a warning like "the following content has false and dangerous information"? Now it is gone so it can't be discussed. And I also think you take away responsibility of the viewers if they don't need to be critical about any information.
      • loceng 6y ago
        "And I also think you take away responsibility of the viewers if they don't need to be critical about any information." This is exactly the problem currently though - the general population doesn't have either the time or critical thinking developed to understand this. Daniel Schmachtenberger on Eric Weinstein's The Portal episode #27 said: “... and the most awesome thing of the current system [of suppressing unruly people] we don’t even have to deal with protestors with tear gas or bean bags or whatever mostly, because mostly addiction, and student debt, and information overwhelm and those things deal with the people adequately so they don’t actually understand enough or care enough or have the capacity to organize very meaningly." Eric replied: “We just legalize weed and make porn free and everyone’s de-motivated.." - timestamped link to talk https://youtu.be/_b4qKv1Ctv8?t=3780 https://youtu.be/_b4qKv1Ctv8?t=3780 - but I'd highly recommend watching the whole interview. The goal has to be getting the population healthy enough to be responsible and reasonable, rational enough, otherwise these hierarchal systems lead by people are guiding this like parents raise children until people are mature enough; the extreme of this would be CCP controlling China's population.
  • r0s 6y ago
    > Suppose you're right. Easy to verify, why suppose anything? > censorship? On a privately owned site? Try again.
    • 0xDEEPFAC 6y ago
      I would like to think about it another way. Suppose you are a "Youtuber" and you have tens of thousands of subs and use it as an income. You agree to their guidelines and they, in turn, become hugely popular due to your content and your fellows. But their guidelines grow more vague and harsh randomly and without warning. Now, Youtube closes your channel, again, without warning or explanation. You don't have the money for a lawyer to sue and contract laws continue to trend Youtube's favor to control creators - esp. if those that go against political narratives that are officially "untrue." Alphabet Inc censors results for China, you don't think they do it for the US? Does that sound fair and just? Look at what happened to Alex Jones. Was he a nut - yea, but he was shut down across every platform at once. Which is censorship - good or bad. There is a media cartel and they have grown to control the internet by waiting for good products and companys to come about and either killing them or corrupting them. Think Snapchat, Vine, Google, Youtube, Reddit, Ring, etc, etc.
    • dependenttypes 6y ago
      > On a privately owned site? Yes, censorship is not exclusive to the government.
      • skuthus 6y ago
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It's pretty cut and dry that it's exclusive to government
        • ric2b 6y ago
          Do you think censorship is a concept exclusive to the United States? It's not: > Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  • hatsunearu 6y ago
    At what point do you say shit is objectively, legitimately harmful, and has literally negative value to society and humanity? Does this deserve punishment? I'd say yes.
    • ric2b 6y ago
      It does not deserve punishement, it deserves correction. Punishing speech is a dangerous game.
  • zouhair 6y ago
    > Does it justify censorship? Yes, they are wrong and they will cause deaths if they are allowed to peddle more unsubstantiated bullshit. This is not a philosophical debate, people are literally dying.
    • MikeAmelung 6y ago
      People are literally dying all the time, and still, every single day, twice as many people are born as have died from COVID-19 over its entire course, worldwide.
    • fwn 6y ago
      > This is not a philosophical debate, people are literally dying. That's a bit like "let's not think about what we're doing, people are literally dying". The gravity of the situation only increases the need for evaluation of our behavior as a society. Public discourse isn't an optional nice-to-have in times in which everything is fine, it's one of the cornerstones of democratic societies.
      • zouhair 6y ago
        No, public discourse in a technical matter is out of the question. Equating the opinion of 2 random doctors to the thousands of epidemiologists worldwide is not helping democracy in any shape or form. It actually destroys it. We need to stop this insanity. Ignorant people's opinion is not worth the opinion of an expert.
        • fwn 6y ago
          I don't even know what "equating opinions" is supposed to mean in that context? We're talking about removing videos. It's not about equating anything, but allowing people to express themselves. > Ignorant people's opinion is not worth the opinion of an expert. That's a very reasonable opinion to have but it's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether we should let Google make the decision on an opinions worth by removing videos. Real discourse does not come with a bouncer, and even if we would try to dream up one that wouldn't outright delegitimize the discourse it certainly wouldn't be a US American for-profit without recourse or checks and balances. I think it's popular to argue that it's the free press that serves the role of an evaluating institution. ..but here again: not a singular tech monopoly and not by removing those opinions, which just makes every evaluation questionable by default.
  • tasuki 6y ago
    I'm generally sympathetic to the doctors. I'm sure they're trying to do the best they can, going against the mainstream, potentially endangering their careers. However, "Dr Fauci hasn’t seen a patient in 20 years" is not an opinion - it's factually wrong. When making controversial statements, one should be very careful to avoid erroneous ones alongside.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• teh_infallible 6y ago
  Maybe they were wrong, and maybe they weren’t. If we can’t see their video, we will never know.
  • James_Henry 6y ago
    You can still see their video. It's on plenty of other sites and there are copies of it on Youtube.
• threatofrain 6y ago
  > The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical society and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. https://www.aaem.org/resources/statements/joint-endorsed/physician-misinformation https://www.aaem.org/resources/statements/joint-endorsed/phy...
• mixmastamyk 6y ago
  They gave published numbers from all over the world, though a bit behind. Tending a few patients at once in a span of decades? Yes, "technically correct." The comment about Fauci was instigated by the reporters, and is about the least important detail from the video. Their thesis is that big-dense-city measures aren't necessary in sparse areas. Appears to be the case so far, most of those folks don't even know a single person with it yet. It's why they are receptive to hoax posts unfortunately. It's also why some more rural states and regions are slowly opening.