3 ms·

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 m

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.
        twomoretime 6y ago
        Great, and the WHO is welcome to keep the doctors video off of their platform. Ignoring ramifications of politicization, How many developments will be missed if we embark on a campaign to suppress all dissenting opinions? You don't think a doctor on the front line is qualified to make inferences about the disease that he is literally treating en masse? You don't think direct observation and experimentation with hundreds of patients could provide valuable insight into the properties of this disease or potential working treatments and/or best practices? How far backwards are you going to bend to defend this position? Again, the fact that this particular decision agrees with your preconceived notions does not mean that YouTube's emerging practice of choosing truth is good for society. The WHO is also not the only qualified body, nor is it a final authority, yet here YouTube is suddenly treating it as one and, conveniently, YouTube's political slant is aligned with this particular decision. If we allow this behavior, it won't be the last time that YouTube picks a winner and shapes the reality perceived by millions of people. This is a possibly unprecedented amount of soft power and it is being used without oversight or control by the society that is being influenced by it. I'm not suggesting we make it illegal but educated citizens should be at least resistant to the idea, not welcoming of it because it happens to agree with their politics now. The same goes for Google and FB and any other platform that acts as a window to information - these corporations are not authorities and should not be gatekeeping information. Long term that's a far greater danger to society than COVID19.

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.
        twomoretime 6y ago
        Great, and the WHO is welcome to keep the doctors video off of their platform. Ignoring ramifications of politicization, How many developments will be missed if we embark on a campaign to suppress all dissenting opinions? You don't think a doctor on the front line is qualified to make inferences about the disease that he is literally treating en masse? You don't think direct observation and experimentation with hundreds of patients could provide valuable insight into the properties of this disease or potential working treatments and/or best practices? How far backwards are you going to bend to defend this position? Again, the fact that this particular decision agrees with your preconceived notions does not mean that YouTube's emerging practice of choosing truth is good for society. The WHO is also not the only qualified body, nor is it a final authority, yet here YouTube is suddenly treating it as one and, conveniently, YouTube's political slant is aligned with this particular decision. If we allow this behavior, it won't be the last time that YouTube picks a winner and shapes the reality perceived by millions of people. This is a possibly unprecedented amount of soft power and it is being used without oversight or control by the society that is being influenced by it. I'm not suggesting we make it illegal but educated citizens should be at least resistant to the idea, not welcoming of it because it happens to agree with their politics now. The same goes for Google and FB and any other platform that acts as a window to information - these corporations are not authorities and should not be gatekeeping information. Long term that's a far greater danger to society than COVID19.