35 ms·

YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

390 points by ppod 6y ago

benjaminwootton 6y ago
Wow that’s dangerous. The interviewee is an ex director at the WHO with over 50 years experience as an Oncologist. He's being deplatformed for even slightly questioning the conventional wisdom. Wow! These tech companies hold way too much power. https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  Even if he's a raving insane person, he should be left online. Indeed, they probably don't censor the people who are truly insane because that's obvious to any viewer. They only censor the people who say things they don't like.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    > Indeed, they probably don't censor the people who are truly insane because that's obvious to any viewer. They only censor the people who say things they don't like. Alex Jones?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- acqq 6y ago
  > ex director at the WHO Regarding his relation to WHO, according to his own claims (dead link on wikipedia) he was "Chief of the Cancer Program from 1997" (to 1999, just two years, two decades ago). But we also know that he falsely claimed to be professor on Imperial College, see also posts here.
  - biofox 6y ago
    There are documents in the WHO's online archive which support the claim. E.g.: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331393/WH-1998-Sep-Oct-p19-20-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331393/WH-1...
    - acqq 6y ago
      Yes, thanks, there it is: "Dr Karol Sikora is Chief of the WHO Programme on Cancer Control" as per the magazine from "September--October 1998" 1) obviously not equivalent to "ex director at the WHO" 2) obviously more than 20 years ago 3) and "on cancer control", not on epidemiology still not anything to allow him to misrepresent his relation to Imperial College as late as 2020 (!) or to give a credence to his current epidemiological policy views.
- compuguy 6y ago
  His Wikipedia article mentions that he accepted a position as Chief of the Cancer Program of the World Health Organization for two years (1997-1999).
tupac_speedrap 6y ago
We can't do anything about it though, Google will just shrug off the blame on a dodgy algo and keep going.
- rurban 6y ago
  dodgy yes, but it's a conventional blacklist that was leaked before. what we can do is suing them. censorship became too popular recently.
otikik 6y ago
Is it this Karol Sikora? > Promotion of alternative medicine > Sikora and the School of Medicine at Buckingham have in the past been supportive of alternative medicine. For a short time, Buckingham offered a diploma in "integrated medicine" (a relatively recent euphemism for alternative medicine). Sikora was a Foundation Fellow of Prince Charles' now-defunct alternative medicine lobby group The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health[24] and Chair of the Faculty of Integrated Medicine, which is unaffiliated with any university; it includes Drs Rosy Daniel and Mark Atkinson, who led Buckingham's "integrated medicine" course. > > Sikora is also a "professional member" of the College of Medicine, a patient-oriented healthcare lobby group also linked to the Prince of Wales that appeared shortly after the collapse of the Prince's Foundation. The College has been criticised extensively in the British Medical Journal for its promotion of alternative medicine. These claims have been contested by the College. He is on the advisory panel of complementary cancer care charity Penny Brohn Cancer Care (formerly the Bristol Cancer Help Centre) of whom Prince Charles is a patron, and is a patron of the Iain Rennie Hospice at Home. Statements by Sikora have been critical of unproven methods of alternative medicine, after Parliament member Lord Maurice Saatchi proposed a bill allowing doctors to use unproven experimental therapies, and he has spoken out against claims that an alkaline diet can cure cancer. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora#Promotion_of_alternative_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora#Promotion_of_alte... It sounds like he might actually have infringed Youtube's "Harmful or dangerous content" guidelines: > Harmful or dangerous content > > Don't post videos that encourage others to do things that might cause them to get badly hurt, especially kids. Videos showing such harmful or dangerous acts may get age-restricted or removed depending on their severity. Source: https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Alternative medicine is mostly bunk, but I absolutely don't agree that it constitutes "harmful or dangerous countent" or should be banned from Youtube. Disputing the consensus should not by itself be forbidden, even when the consensus is accurate and important.
  - 6y ago
mchusma 6y ago
I don't really care the content at all, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. In the US, I don't know an obvious issue besides legislative change to enforce this. However, once they consider themselves as "curators" of information with near-monopoly status, I hope they are litigated against successfully.
- antpls 6y ago
  YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more viewers = more ads. The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type of content they are allowed to show. The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them
  - generalpass 6y ago
    > YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more viewers = more ads. > The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type of content they are allowed to show. > The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them This assumes they don't have the legal resources to fend off such a case.
  - wodenokoto 6y ago
    No they would not like to be the phone company that pipes data around. For example: They could easily - but actively choose not to - host pornography. They do not want to host everything that is legal.
  - xhkkffbf 6y ago
    The phone company was regulated by the government to be strictly neutral. We should aim for the same here.
- jasode 6y ago
  >, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. This suggestion (and the comparison to phone companies) comes up repeatedly but Youtube can't _be_ a neutral carrier if they are funded by advertising. That's because the businesses' choice to pay for advertising is not a neutral choice. See "advertiser friendly content"[1] and Adpocalypse[2][3]. Land line phones and cell phones are funded by subscriptions and they are also point-to-point communication between 2 private individuals. Phones (barring small-scale exceptions such as conference calls) are not a "broadcasting" medium. There is no broadcasting medium in the world that acts as a neutral carrier. Not newspapers. And not tv like NBC/CBS/ABC. Even the government funded broadcasters like American PBS or UK BBC are not neutral carriers. Ok, let's say you this ambitious idealism to create a new broadcasting website that allows anything except for child pornography. How are you going to fund it? Advertising?!? That's just recreating the Youtube "ad friendly" dilemma. Subscriptions? Most people don't want to pay a subscription fee for user-generated-content. Yes some die-hard web surfers pay for Youtube Red/Premium to avoid ads but they are a small minority that's not enough to pay for the entire Youtube infrastructure. So far, only funding based on advertising seems to be viable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertiser-friendly_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertise... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+youtube+adpocalypse https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+... [3] https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spend-new-ad-controversy/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spe...
SeanLuke 6y ago
> professor of medicine According to this guy's Wikipedia page, he has claimed many times to be a professor of oncology at Imperial College: but he is not, and Imperial College has sought legal options to stop him from making this claim. The page is full of other fairly astonishing stuff, not the least of which is apparent fraud connected with the Lockerbie Bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora I get the feeling that there's more to this story than this article suggests.
- alexpetralia 6y ago
  This is the quote from Wikipedia: "Sikora told The Guardian that he did not know he would be used in the ad campaign, and that he agreed with Obama about the American health care system. In the attack ad, Sikora was referred to as professor of oncology at Imperial College. This led Imperial to seek legal advice to stop Sikora from claiming to be a professor of cancer medicine at Imperial; a claim that he was understood to have made repeatedly over the previous five years." . Here is The Guardian source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/22/karol-sikora-honorary-professor-imperial-college https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/22/karol-sikora... "Although the US advert did not state a link to Imperial, at the end of piece written by Sikora on the day it was first aired, 12 May, for UnionLeader.com, he was described as professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College school of medicine, London. ... "I'm very careful not to involve either my NHS contract with Hammersmith or Imperial in anything that's political," he said. "I'm a consultant at Hammersmith hospital, nobody would dispute that. It's true I can't call myself professor of cancer medicine at Imperial, but I can at Buckingham. The trouble is when I get quoted somewhere, they just use the old stuff." However, on 29 January, Sikora gave evidence to the Commons health select committee. Introducing himself, he said: "I am Karol Sikora, professor of oncology at Imperial College for 22 years."" . I believe it is possible the advertisement made this association without his consent; however I agree it is problematic if he represented to the Commons health select committee that he is a professor at Imperial. Personally, I don't find this damning evidence enough to eradicate his credibility.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 6y ago
> The serology results around the world (and forthcoming in Britain) don’t necessarily reveal the percentage of people who have had the disease > He estimates 25-30% of the UK population has had Covid-19, and higher in the group that is most susceptible Here's the Office for National Statistics household survey results. This is only people living in households. (It doesn't include hospital patients, or people living in care or nursing homes). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england21may2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... > Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 4 May to 17 May 2020, an average of 137,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 85,000 to 208,000). This equates to 0.25% (95% confidence interval: 0.16% to 0.38%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 14,599 people in 7,054 households. Frustratingly they haven't said yet how many people in total they think have ever had covid-19, but it's not going to be anywhere near 15million people in the UK.
MattGaiser 6y ago
I suggest everyone read this fellow's Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora
- ppod 6y ago
  Do you think that such people should be banned from content distribution channels?
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Yes. You have the right to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to force someone else to publish it. If you want to publish what you want free of interference, pay for your own servers and bandwidth.
    - ppod 6y ago
      Of course, but I'm not asking about what rights distributors should have, I'm asking normatively whether a distributor should ban people like this.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        A distributor is a private business that has the right to ban anyone they want except for protected classes. He can be his own distributor that’s the power of the internet.
        ppod 6y ago
        Of course. As I said, I'm not asking what rights they have. I'm asking what you think. If you were youtube, would you ban this video?
        scarface74 6y ago
        I prefer the way that FB does it. If you share information that is false, they overlay it with a warning saying that the post is probably false and let you click on it and view it.
ppod 6y ago
Is there any way if I can find out why my submission is flagged? The last thing I submitted was also flagged (and then unflagged), but I have tried to abide by the submission guidelines.
- alexpetralia 6y ago
  I find it bizarre also. I don't think this something dang is doing - he provided a pretty legitimate defense here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23225442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23225442 However I do think there are "flag mobs" which increasingly flag posts they don't agree with.
  - ppod 6y ago
    Yeah, I don't even think it has to be mob, it's just one of those things that happens as a site becomes more mainstream. Ironically it's related to the same issue as the submission: people equate permitting something to condoning it.
- Antecedent 6y ago
  You have editorialized the title of the article. The expectation is generally that you use the original.
  - ppod 6y ago
    Well ok. The reason I changed it was because I thought the original was too sensational
- dang 6y ago
  The site guidelines ask you to email hn@ycombinator.com with questions like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things, but in this case I suppose it might have been a combination of users who are fatigued by this general topic having been repeated so frequently in recent weeks, and users who agree with the decision to take down the interview and don't think HN should have a thread about it. As I said, though—those are just guesses. In the meantime, someone else reposted it and it was on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23258432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23258432. But since this post was first, I've turned off the flags on it and merged those comments hither.
DSingularity 6y ago
The virus is “getting tired” globally at the same time!? That sounds almost mystical.
- thomasahle 6y ago
  Wasn't that what people were predicting would happen in the summer since the beginning? And then probably with a rebound in autumn/next winter.
  - yorwba 6y ago
    That's not so great news for the southern half of the planet.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    1. No, people weren't predicting that the virus would "get tired". 2. Even if we generously interpret this as meaning that the virus would be less infectious in warmer weather, the only evidence we had pointed to this as only a possibility, rather than something we could predict. 3. As summer has begun in the Northern hemisphere, we still don't have any good evidence that the virus is less infectious in warmer weather--certainly not in the Southern US where the disease continues to spread unchecked.
    - dekhn 6y ago
      All predictions about seasonality were made using analogy to similar viruses which have shown that sort of behavior. I am not aware of any high quality scientific evidence supporting seasonality (or nonseasonality). I think that only really becomes available after several seasons; predictions aren't super helpful here.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I don't think it is generous to believe "getting tired" was used metaphorically. On the other hand, perhaps you are right and this medical doctor really thinks the virus is a singular entity, with thoughts and feelings.
Gravyness 6y ago
This isn't the first time it happened nor will it be the last. Here in my country (Brazil) they invited an actual toxicologist, professor and ambassador of medical facility in São Paulo (since 2009) to speak live at CNN but when he mentioned that there's an over-exageration in terms of deadlyness and started putting actual data, studies and past examples in his speech, he was promptly and unapologetically interupted, we can even hear someone say "cut" in the broadcast, before the newswomans interupts him by saying, I kid you not, "We cannot continue the interview because the doctor is not able to listen to us..." all while the doctor was made silent by this statement. Makes me wonder who makes these decisions.
- Apaec 6y ago
  Do you have a link for further reading?
dboreham 6y ago
It would be great to see peer-reviewed papers, or even raw data to support these assertions.
alabaster_punt 6y ago
Hardly surprising that a video full of dangerous misinformation has been pulled. It would be worth reading about this particular professor on Wikipedia, particularly his support for alternative medicine, his false claim to have been a professor at Imperial college, and his claim that the UK's NHS is "the last bastion of communism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora
- DiffEq 6y ago
  So what is so dangerous about it? Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as to what danger really is. I don't know these people that made the video and I don't subscribe to magic crystals or whatever they are pushing/saying but I do know what Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson from Imperial college created in his flawed modeling - a world wide panic. That is what has been dangerous. Google is a private company I suppose and they can do whatever they want but it would be better to leave their videos up so they can be "peer reviewed" and mocked if what they are saying is farcical. Just like we do with these ladies: https://youtu.be/B4s9GLWiUJM https://youtu.be/B4s9GLWiUJM
  - alabaster_punt 6y ago
    What's dangerous about it is that it's encouraging people to demand that their government enact policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths. Neil Ferguson's model was not flawed (at least, not in a significant way that would invalidate its conclusions)
    - s9w 6y ago
      Oh boy I wouldn't be so sure after having a look at it on github.
      - alabaster_punt 6y ago
        If you have a specific reason to believe that the model resulted in an incorrect conclusion, feel free to share it, instead of casting aspersions with cryptic nothings.
kerkeslager 6y ago
There are two separate issues here: 1. Non-science: calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Sikora is also a fellow of The Princes Foundation For Integrated Health and a professional member of the generically-named College Of Medicine. Both of these organizations are lobbyists which promote alternative medicine. 2. Censorship: rather than allow conversation where real scientists can respond to Sikora's nonsense with facts, YouTube decided to push his followers into their own echo chambers where pieces like this which represents him as a martyr go unchallenged. Sakora isn't a martyr: he's either an insane person or an amoral profiteering liar who doesn't care if his lies get people killed. But I don't think censorship is the answer to lies. Truth is the answer to lies.
- alabaster_punt 6y ago
  Sakora is the latter, and the problem with this viewpoint is publishing the truth elsewhere doesn't stop people from absorbing the lies here. Somebody consuming this content is not likely to seek out alternative viewpoints to correct themselves. The information is dangerous, it should not be available.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > Somebody consuming this content is not likely to seek out alternative viewpoints to correct themselves. Which is why it's important that we present the truth right next to it, so people don't have to look elsewhere. > The information is dangerous, it should not be available. Well, it is available, in places where the truth isn't available, so I don't really know what you think taking it off YouTube has achieved.
    - alabaster_punt 6y ago
      > Which is why it's important that we present the truth right next to it, so people don't have to look elsewhere. This still assumes that people will be willing to watch it. > Well, it is available, in places where the truth isn't available, so I don't really know what you think taking it off YouTube has achieved. It has achieved a lower spread of misinformation. Now nobody browsing YouTube will happen upon this video by chance and start believing something that is false and dangerous. Of course, those who are already embedded in these communities will still be able to access the information elsewhere. It is not a perfect solution, I don't think there is a perfect solution, but it does reduce the impact.
JSavageOne 6y ago
Google is a totalitarian institution and this is offensive to anyone who values free speech
- takeda 6y ago
  Google is not a government organization is a private platform. It generally does not get involved in things like that, but the amounts of misinformation is staggering. I have family members affected by this and it looks like it is a targeted misinformation attack. It starts with Facebook posts, which then often direct you to youtube channels which are condition people into crazier and crazier theories. It is so weird, because many of these theories even contradict themselves, yet people still believe them. The guy in article is also an oncologist and he talks about subject that is not his expertise. It's like asking a front end engineer how to best design the a new data center. This is especially dangerous since we are currently in middle of pandemic and many people will trust his advice.
  - lukifer 6y ago
    There's a relevant engineering axiom, that a sufficient quantitative difference amounts to a qualitative difference (sometimes phrased as "quantity has a quality all its own"). At some ineffable point, a "private platform" of sufficient scope becomes a Commons, resembling a social substrate more than a mere voluntary exchange between individuals. A historical equivalent would be "company towns", with goods only available from company stores, exchanged in company scrip, etc. [0] Obviously, from a purely legal perspective, you are 100% correct. Google is under no obligation to uphold a principle of free speech, non-favoritism, etc., and it would take significant new legislation or regulation to change that. Nonetheless, in terms of the role that is being played in society and culture, tech giants in general, and Google/Facebook in particular, are wielding disproportionate (and arguably ideologically biased) influence, bordering on an attempt to control narratives and ideas. It's perfectly legitimate to find this trend concerning without supporting the particular ideas being suppressed (I think Plandemic/InfoWars/etc, are utter nonsense). I believe such actions tend to be counter-productive: (a) isolating and ostracizing those who are falling for bad ideas only reinforces their beliefs and persecution complex, while obstructing the path back to better ideas; and (b) every once in a while a seemingly-crazy idea turns out to be true (it's instructive the extent to which it was a fight uphill for germ theory to be accepted by the experts of the day [1]). There simply isn't a magic wand that sifts good ideas from bad, a priori; and if the power to make that decision is centralized, even with the best of intentions, whoever wields it will inevitably make mistakes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#John_Snow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#John_Sn...
acituan 6y ago
I don’t agree with the interview contents, nor think professorship alone gives sufficient credibility in the face of a novel pandemic, data of which is in the process of emerging. That said, I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not. They don’t have in-house experts on these domains, they don’t have a magic epistemology machine that spits out the “facts”. They are good at writing web services, they shouldn’t be in charge of things like sound epidemiology. I always imagine past figures that had adversarial relationships with authority at their times like Socrates, Galileo or Jesus and realize how Youtube would definitely take their videos down, shut their channels down and Susan Wojcicki would say things like “on matters of geocentricity vs heliocentricity we will follow the expert opinion of Catholic Church”. Then I think how might we be hurting ourselves today in ways we don’t even know by letting these tech institutions be the ultimate arbiter of our meaning making machinery.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  Youtube isn't in charge of what is credible or not. Youtube is in charge of what shows up on youtube or not. There are many categories of things that can't be on youtube, not just things youtube thinks are incorrect. Should youtube overstep its bounds, that makes it easier for competitors to enter the video streaming market. It seems like libertarian leaning people forget half of their philosophy on this issue.
  - achillesheels 6y ago
    >It seems like libertarian leaning people forget half of their philosophy on this issue. Because they are "drunk" on theory. To grind out a new video hosting platform is a lot of work.
  - mfer 6y ago
    This gets a bit into monopolies. YouTube is Google and Google prioritizes its own properties. Google is the most widely used search engine and works hard to keep it that way. Is there a way to easily have popular interviews online outside of YouTube?
downerending 6y ago
Instead of pussyfooting around, it'd be nice if YouTube would just tell us explicitly what we're supposed to think.
- wiskinator 6y ago
  That's HackerNew's job.
- stevehawk 6y ago
  What I love about comments like this is that "we" (the citizens) are demanding that websites filter out X, Y, and Z, and then at same time come back yelling at them when they do. Censorship and lack of censorship come at a cost and you have to be willing to pay one of them.
- dlp211 6y ago
  You act like information isn't constantly being curated in all forms of knowledge delivery. The same way we don't tolerate students attempting to derail professors in class with unfounded hypothesis or flawed logical arguments, Youtube doesn't have to tolerate the same on its platform. Disclaimer: Work at Google, thoughts are my own.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - downerending 6y ago
    There's a lot of difference between preventing a student shouting down a professor in class with some crap argument and the college telling the student they're not allowed to quietly discuss an "unfounded hypothesis" in some corner with another student. The beauty (theoretically) of platforms like YouTube is that we can watch what we like and skip what we don't without harming any other user. And as for qualifications, if an oncologist isn't qualified to have an opinion on COVID-19, YouTube sure as hell isn't.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
This is a bad trend. If scientists in China contradicted the government (and directly - the WHO), it seems like YouTube would have censored them. Debate is what sustains free society and free society will perish when certain narratives become unquestionable.
drunkpotato 6y ago
YouTube consistently followed their policy of removing videos which promote misinformation, disinformation, and policy proposals that contradict the World Health Organization's official guidelines during an emergency pandemic. I have my problems with YouTube, but this isn't censorship, and it isn't a conspiracy to silence anyone. It's an effort to be responsible to public health and safety. The hysteria I see here is completely unwarranted.
- ksk 6y ago
  An advertising company deciding what is credible or not is scary.
  - drunkpotato 6y ago
    But YouTube is not deciding on the credibility of the video. They are simply saying that in this emergency, in the interests of public safety, they will not allow videos that contradict World Health Organization information and policy guidelines. And they removed a video that violated that policy. It's a very narrowly defined exception to their normally open platform. I don't see what is scary or sinister about that.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      > But YouTube is not deciding on the credibility of the video. They are simply saying that in this emergency, in the interests of public safety, they will not allow videos that contradict World Health Organization information and policy guidelines. No, YouTube still is determining credibility. YouTube is still saying, "this video is misinformation and we are removing it." The fact that it's treating the WHO information as the baseline does not change the fact that YouTube is deciding credibility, and removing videos that do not meet it's criteria for credibility.
    - joeclark77 6y ago
      How does it make it better that they've arbitrarily decided to censor videos that contradict China's volunteer propaganda agency?
KCUOJJQJ 6y ago
I hope YouTube only removes a little bit. It seems so to me. A lot of similar information is still available. Also, the videos that should be deleted before any others are the videos about the claim that it's better to be too afraid than too little, for instance. If people deliberately increase their fear, they become irrational like Francis E. Dec, who believed in the "Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God". The difference is that Dec had no doubts, and didn't choose to ignore doubts and to deliberately be afraid the most.
lmilcin 6y ago
(redacted voluntarily)
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. Internet threads can't handle denunciatory rhetoric without collapsing. It's the way the medium works, and we have to consciously compensate for it, if we're going to keep curious conversation going here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    I think flamewar is for when people will have polarized views on a particular topic and the poster posts only to bring the people to fight each other. My post is what I think a necessary reminder in a topic that I honestly don't think is very polarizing. It just needs to be repeated, over, and over again. The same way it gets taught to kids at school so they teach it to their kids, and so on. Because it is important. Think about this: if something is taught to kids at school, how can you justify objecting to it on HN (I mean unless it is a topic that is obviously incorrectly taught, which I suppose this is not one of them)?
    - dang 6y ago
      This is a site for curiosity, and repetition and curiosity don't go together. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20repetition&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... Multiply that 10x when the repetition is indignant or inflammatory. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20indig&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I doubt that you would want other commenters to drill you like a schoolchild, but even if I'm wrong about that, please don't do it to others on this site. We're trying for entirely the opposite sort of discussion. Basically, if it's predictable, it is off topic here.
      - 6y ago
atomashpolskiy 6y ago
Lots of great points made in this thread. Question is, what can we do about it as a collection of individuals? Hackers often like to pretend to be apolitical, when faced with political issues. No wonder, escaping from the turmoils of the real world in technology has always been a sweet sweet delusion. Now the technology itself becomes an instrument of politics, and there's no place left to hide.
dpeterson 6y ago
Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous. Platforms like Youtube are beyond ubiquitous and we all depend on them. The companies behind them have more money than countries. That, combined with the tax free private foundations their founders nearly all have, is taking us down some very bad roads. Of course, those roads are always paved with the best intentions and for our own good. I think it is well past time government step in and limit the power and control mega corporations flex on their platforms and on our public policy in nearly all matters.
- exolymph 6y ago
  > Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous. YouTube is not a monopoly. There are other websites where you can post or watch video. Not as many people choose to use them, but you're not entitled to their attention anyway.
  - theandrewbailey 6y ago
    Existence of competition doesn't stop courts from considering a company to be a monopoly. You could have used a Mac and Netscape in the 90s, but the US went after Microsoft anyway.
- joeclark77 6y ago
  On top of that, you have to realize that these countries (YT, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are completely obedient to the government of China. Not because it's their biggest market, but because China will shut them out if they don't toe the line. Whereas the US and Europe have never indicated a willingness to sanction these companies no matter what. It's a tyranny of the minority.
  - gundmc 6y ago
    Literally every one of those sites is blocked in China...
jansan 6y ago
I am currently watching the video on YouTube. How is it banned?
noelsusman 6y ago
The video seems to be back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg. Probably got caught up in some sort of automated COVID misinformation algorithm. Given the content of the video, I'm not inclined to place much weight on their side of the story here. This feels like fake outrage to drive views.
- bzb3 6y ago
  The video actually get removed, how is this "fake outrage"
okreallywtf 6y ago
I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while misinformation is doing damage right this second. The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I think of is that when presented with a table full of junk food, its hard to get people to pay attention to the veggie platter. This study[1] indicates more success could be had with a new narrative that doesn't just refute the misinformation, but crafts a new narrative with additional information that can dislodge the other one, like a flank attack instead a head on one. Anecdotally I've seen that work and I've also been guilty of the lazy head on approach and seen it fail. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134904.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134904.h...
- zupreme 6y ago
  And THAT is exactly the issue. "Misinformation" uses the prefix "Mis", which is "...a prefix applied to various parts of speech, meaning “ill,” “mistaken,” “wrong,” “wrongly,” “incorrectly,” or simply negating: mistrial; misprint; mistrust." As the Covid-19 situation, prognoses, diagnoses, testing procedures, and far more are PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be flawed, it is RIDICULOUS to silence ANYONE, let alone legitimate experts, even if they are engaging in WILD speculation. FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY MATTERS WHEN THE SPEECH IS DISLIKED. Think over that...deeply...speculation and experimentation may save your life....or not. wa inna Allahu Al Alim
  - benignslime 6y ago
    Yeah see, people don't think, deeply, about anything.
  - CyanBird 6y ago
    Oh that's very much true But as stated this is not a freedom of speech issue as YouTube is not the government and nobody is entitled to their private platform
- 6y ago
bilekas 6y ago
This is where it doesn't matter. YouTube does not have an obligation to leave everything up there at all. Given that this interview is misleading at best, and dangerous at worst. It's up to YouTube to decide if it wants to be used as a vehicle. Personally I'm glad they took it down. I want to get out and would love to go back to old normal. We all would. But I don't want to get sic before a vaccine is ready, and I don't want people I know and love to get sick either. If you're getting upset about the actions of youtube, the fact is they are full within their rights to do whatever they like with their platform. As for the free speech argument : Companies are not required to give space to ideas or viewpoints they do not wish to be associated with. https://pacificlegal.org/a-first-amendment-win-supreme-court-rules-the-government-cant-control-private-speech/ https://pacificlegal.org/a-first-amendment-win-supreme-court... https://casetext.com/case/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck https://casetext.com/case/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-...
throwaway52120 6y ago
Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little. Let no good catastrophe go to waste. With each, we lose a little freedom and the populace resounds in joy. Not because they want less freedom, no, it's because they think they've triumphed over a common evil: the dissenters. These cycles always include labeling the enemy, and it's usually the ones who disagree or challenge the state. The common man isn't an expert in virology, world politics, or terrorism. Yet, if you look at the ones upholding and defending the position of the state, they're just laymen. Their opinions are fiercely held without question and expertise. All you have to do is label the enemy, make that label an adjective that the average-person would reject at first glance (conspiracy theorist, extremist, etc.), then assign that label to anyone who dissents from the state's position. After that, it's just policymaking for the "greater good".
- foolinaround 6y ago
  >Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little. beautifully stated. Or the more common "boiling a frog slowly" If we do not fight for our freedoms, our children will get used to the reduced freedoms as a 'new normal' and it will only get more repressive
  - megablast 6y ago
    Or slippery slope.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Boiling a frog slowly is a sound argument against any form of heating even while you are freezing to death. Existing platforms could be misused by private actors in a way that negatively effects the populace. Arguably most of the people presently concerned are either a majority of bad actors or a minority of idealists concerned about future potential. To the worthy minority I would suggest that difficult to censor platforms are probably trivially realizable in mid term especially if substantially desirable or needed. I don't think censorship by platforms like YouTube is being misused now and the massive risk remains censorship by state actors. I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy not less while working on maturing decentralized options to the net benefit in the short to mid term as a hedge against tyranny that will virtually certainly primarily remain the province of state actors.
buboard 6y ago
Among other things, social media facilitate exchanges between scientists. Unherd has a series of very good interviews with various viewpoints on the disease. Youtube should be ashamed
flowerlad 6y ago
Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. Social media has made it too easy to spread dangerous levels of misinformation and hate online. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to YouTube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization purposes, adversarial nations were spreading fake news to influence who gets elected, and others were even live-streaming mass murders. This has caused an upheaval in societal mores as regards free speech. Enough is enough! There needs to be limits. Communities started imposing limits to free speech. For example, UC Berkeley, renowned for giving birth to the Free Speech Movement, made news for banning harmful speech, such as that by Ann Coulter. This is a natural evolution of societal mores. This particular evolution was a reaction to the excesses and abuses seen in social media. This type of censorship, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal. We live in a new world. Malicious individuals and groups now have the power to reach hundreds of millions instantly, at no cost to themselves. The old rules no longer apply. Some say if you disagree with someone else's speech you should not just ban them, you should defeat them by arguing against their ideas. But when state-sponsored actors spread fake news and divisive ads at a massive scale on social media you can’t simply defeat them by arguing against their ideas. How do you counter it? By buying opposing ads on Facebook? Even if you have pockets as deep as Putin’s, what a waste of money that would be! This is a new world and the old methods are no longer applicable. Communities and social media companies will need to engage in some censorship.
BFatts 6y ago
There are several points that contradict the consensus opinion, at this time. Such as the statement "More schools should reopen in June as ‘children are not the transmitters of this virus’" is totally refuted at this point. There is plenty of evidence that children transmit the disease like any other human.
- nradov 6y ago
  The latest research indicates that younger children are not significant transmitters of this virus. There is little scientific basis to support keeping primary schools closed. The risk may be higher with older children. https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-and-covid-19 https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-a...
ThomPete 6y ago
Youtube can do what they want but let's not forget that they use WHO as a guideline for what is considered within the Overton window. WHO has repeatedly been wrong on a number of occasions not the least mask, travel bans, and very slow to call this a pandemic. The is btw zero evidence that having fake prophets on youtube is endangering public health and this is unfortunately an excuse for people who like to tell others what to do, to pretend they are doing it for the public good.
chrischen 6y ago
These types of censorship patterns are identical to that employed by China in intent. The practical consequences are the same as well. In China information censorship is due to the government trying to promote peace and harmony. Aka, the government thinks it knows what’s best for people and forces it on people. Facebook et al also encounter these same problems, where they see people spreading “misinformation.” It’s a hard problem to solve, but they essentially resort to taking the same types of censorship as China that everyone so easily criticizes. The irony is Google is now doing it too after claiming to have left the market due to forced censorship. Some people may cite China’s censorship/banning of Falun Gong. What people don’t bother to look into is that Falun Gong is an anti-gay, really out there cult. Their censorship justifications of that is not unlike censoring “fake news” like this “doctor.” While it may be right (of course their methodology may be questionable), it completely short circuits the ability for critical thinkers to actually analyze all content. It’s done supposedly for the greater good.
- bilekas 6y ago
  > These types of censorship patterns are identical to that employed by China in intent. The practical consequences are the same as well. They're not identical, the state doesn't determine YouTubes actions.
  - the8472 6y ago
    Legislators puts pressure on them. E.g. by threatening to repeal CDA or bring other regulation if they do not self-regulate and "do something" about content they deem problematic for one reason or another.
    - bilekas 6y ago
      Thats funny, I always thought it was business' lobbying the government to change policies..
      - the8472 6y ago
        Those things are not mutually exclusive. Politicians ask for things that make them look good, companies ask for things that benefit their bottom line. As long as conspiracy theorists are not youtube's cashcow and tax cuts can be sold as improving the economy for everyone both sides benefit.
garyclarke27 6y ago
Appalling behaviour by YouTube. Until recently I admired Google, no longer, this kind of opinion based censorship (facts have yet to be established re covid), makes my blood boil, Google must be urgently regulated to protect free speech.
burke_holland 6y ago
Looks alive and well to me... https://youtu.be/uk2YZfnsOPg https://youtu.be/uk2YZfnsOPg
- takeda 6y ago
  So just guerilla advertising? So weird, that video is in the article that claims it was banned.
  - raspasov 6y ago
    I would have been really surprised if they actually removed it. The points made in the video are mostly sensible. They acknowledge the many unknowns. It more or less advocates for the Swedish model of dealing with this vs. most other countries.
    - busymom0 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266336
    - RandomTisk 6y ago
      Google deleted / censored CSPAN video of a Senator on the floor of the Senate[0]. [0] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/c-span-video-of-rand-paul-reading-censored-impeachment-trial-question-taken-down-on-twitter/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/c-span-video-of-ran...
      - Thorrez 6y ago
        That article is about a Tweet being taken down, not about Google. Also that article says > It is not clear whether C-SPAN or Twitter took down the video.
        RandomTisk 6y ago
        My bad, here's a better link. It's hard to find a "mainstream" source because most of the old media is ignoring a lot of newsworthy items these days. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/13/rand-paul-blasts-youtube-over-censorship-of-speech-on-senate-floor/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/13/rand-paul-blasts-y... It's widely known that Google/Youtube took down any videos where the name of the supposed whistleblower were being mentioned, at least according to a lot of regular content creators who had videos deleted or shadow banned.
swiley 6y ago
Google’s entire business is pathological mass manipulation of what people think for hire. Using Google software and services is dangerous and irresponsible. De-platform now!
throw7 6y ago
If that video was "banned" on youtube, how am I able to view it on youtube? The first few statements he makes are bit eye-raising and I didn't continue listening but: "many of the people who died would've died at the exact same time anyway" I wonder the source or how he knows. He says it so matter of factly that I'm sceptical.
cfmcdonald 6y ago
I can't help but wonder if there is a generational divide occurring in these censorship debates. Some contributors to the discussion seem to believe that everyone has a natural right to post a video and have it available to (if not see by) a global audience. As someone who grew up in the 1980s this is a strange point-of-view to me, but I can see how it might feel more natural to someone who came of age in the 2010s.
- AgentME 6y ago
  This is getting more into forums than platforms like YouTube, but I like how the article "Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism" (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...) describes this divide: >Maybe it's because I grew up on the Internet in places where there was always a sysop, and so I take for granted that whoever runs the server has certain responsibilities. Maybe I understand on a gut level that the opposite of censorship is not academia but 4chan (which probably still has mechanisms to prevent spam). Maybe because I grew up in that wide open space where the freedom that mattered was the freedom to choose a well-kept garden that you liked and that liked you, as if you actually could find a country with good laws. Maybe because I take it for granted that if you don't like the archwizard, the thing to do is walk away (this did happen to me once, and I did indeed just walk away). I think many people coming to the internet nowadays have had their formative internet experiences on large social media sites, where moderation is both impersonal and rare, to the point that users don't bother understanding it because it's unlikely to affect them, and then if it does affect them, the reasons for it aren't understood and they feel singled out. When these people hear someone talk about smaller better-moderated places, they can't understand the appeal, as if it were proposed to them that a site would be better with more boogeymen.
- JackRabbitSlim 6y ago
  “[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” -- Justice Hugo Black, majority opinion in Marsh Vs Alabama. Youtube et al certainly encourage the free and public flow of traffic. Their business model depends on it. So their responsibility to the public would seem to obviously overshadow the perceived protections as a "private company". I was also a child of the 80's
radiantmonk 6y ago
Strange, the video link in the article is to YouTube. It plays fine for me.
ycombonator 6y ago
They will remove anything that doesn’t tow the WHO line. Aka globalists.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
biztos 6y ago
Am I the only one bothered by people talking about “censorship” in this context? A private company chose to remove content from its service because it considers that content to be bad, and probably in violation of its terms. Did the government force it to do so? Is somebody preventing the owner of the video from hosting it on their own web site? Censorship is a real thing in the world, and so is crying wolf.
- brink 6y ago
  I'd be more willing to have this conversation if Youtube had actual competition.
  - biztos 6y ago
    Isn’t Facebook competition? But I don’t see why that matters. If I can’t get published in the mainstream media, but I have plenty of options in the alternative media, is that censorship?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  There is censorship and government censorship. Both are real and people can have valid opinions on both. I like it when the government censors child pornography, but I don't like it when they censor political speech. I like it when corporations censors child pornography, not not when they censor minority opinions on covid policy
  - biztos 6y ago
    Ok but then how are we to distinguish Corporate Censorship from Corporation Chooses Not To Publish My Opinion? If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count? If it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to publish on my universally accessible blog? If it’s just that “not publishing what I want them to publish” counts as censorship then (as per my first, unloved comment) I think it’s a perversion of the term. Many places have real censorship, as in “publish this idea and you go to jail.” If I’ve got it wrong, please, enlighten me.
tibbydudeza 6y ago
He is a oncologist so not an expert in the field of epidemiology. The virus is getting "tired" ... really. Lots of these contrarian "experts" popping up in youtube channels with rather slick production values (wonder who is funding them) about social distancing and lock down policies.
alterego2 6y ago
Censorship kills. The whole COVID pandemic could arguably be avoided if China haven't decided to silence another doctor who disagreed with the official point of view.
ibejoeb 6y ago
Susan Wojcicki has publicly stated over a month ago that the current policy is to remove content that is not in line with WHO's positions. https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-against-who-guidance-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-ag...
jb775 6y ago
It's probably about time we start discussing as a developer community how to take meaningful actions to curb this behavior. Putting the particular topic details here aside, I think everyone can agree it's very troubling that a platform with as much power as Google is actively censoring speech they do not agree with. Not sure what the best action points would be, but I'm thinking we start by speaking with our companies about redirecting ad-spending away from Google, pausing any active development related to integrating Google products and seek out alternatives, removing/replacing Google analytics (since this is where tons of value is created for Google and allows them to follow users basically everywhere), and seriously talk about unionization next-steps. Thoughts?
ibigb 6y ago
I used to get upset with untruths being published. But then I found that humans are evolving and it is an individual evolution, not really a herd evolution, and each individual must learn to discern what is true and what is false. It is Life Course 110. Imagine what wimps humans would be if everything were sanitized, there were no challenges. How would the human race grow strong? Challenges are there to make you strong, one not easily manipulated by Youtube, governments, religions, "experts" and so on. So stay awake, and see if you are being manipulated. Would Life be useful if it didn't challenge you? A certain amount of life's challenges are a blessing, too many challenges...well we don't want that.
mrfusion 6y ago
If nothing else it just makes it look like they’re hiding something and encourages more interest.
anm89 6y ago
Of course he should be censored! Despite his probable decade of medical training, he believes the wrong thing.
- wesammikhail 6y ago
  So HN should sensor you now because the Gods of HN believe that you believe in the wrong thing. Yea makes sense. This is certainly going to end well /s
raspasov 6y ago
Am I confused or the video is currently on YouTube? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg
- takeda 6y ago
  The article that says it was banned, links to it, LOL.
- busymom0 6y ago
  It was reinstated: https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1263518352347148288 https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/12635183523471482...
xlc0212 6y ago
Media can either be evil and censor information to potentially save life, or respect freedom of speech which could lead to severe consequences. Which side are you in? There is no correct answer and we just have to admit we are in a bad situation which does not exist an win-win solution.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ehsankia 6y ago
tl;dr: There are millions of videos about COVID-19 being uploaded to Youtube and they have a non-zero false-positive rate. This was accidentally removed and promptly restored upon manual review. Basically nothing to see here.
- ta17711771 6y ago
  > promptly restored upon manual review. Promptly restored upon viral traction of outrage...just like that podcast app was....
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Exactly. What else aren't we hearing about that's being arbitrarily censored by YouTube? And can we really trust it as a platform? I'm losing more trust in Google every day. 10 years ago was "don't be evil." Now, they're just, "be only as evil as you can get away with."
    - busymom0 6y ago
      The situation is very similar to what's happening with a lot of Android developers. Many incidents where their app gets banned or removed for silly things. One I remember was getting removed because they had the word "windows" in their play store metadata and Google banned it because of having third party platform name. Except the app was using the term "windows" in reference to a house window, not the OS. Emailing play store support is pretty much useless unless you are a big company or can generate enough viral outrage on social media for them to notice.
      - thefounder 6y ago
        At least on Android you can sideload apps...that's not the case on iOS
        busymom0 6y ago
        I develop apps for both iOS and Android. There's pros and cons to both. I prefer developing for iOS as there's more money in it plus I enjoy the platform more but if people want more customization, Android is definitely better.
nihonde 6y ago
YouTube has been deleting the excellent MedCram series and then recommending videos with titles like “China lied!” In my feed...because I subscribe to MedCram.
gfxgirl 6y ago
I tried to add that Japan's test on Favipiravir is showing no efficacy for COVID. It's news all over Japan on May 20th. Wikipedia rejected the edit. Google "Avigan" (the brand name for Favipiravir) in news and it will come up but TPTB at wikipedia decided it was fake news and reverted the edit. The article used to say "Japan to start trials of Favipiravir for treatment of COVID-19". Changed to "Japan tests showing Favipiravir not effective against COVID-19". Removed.

390 points by ppod 6y ago

Wow that’s dangerous. The interviewee is an ex director at the WHO with over 50 years experience as an Oncologist. He's being deplatformed for even slightly questioning the conventional wisdom. Wow! These tech companies hold way too much power. https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Even if he's a raving insane person, he should be left online. Indeed, they probably don't censor the people who are truly insane because that's obvious to any viewer. They only censor the people who say things they don't like.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  > Indeed, they probably don't censor the people who are truly insane because that's obvious to any viewer. They only censor the people who say things they don't like. Alex Jones?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
acqq 6y ago
> ex director at the WHO Regarding his relation to WHO, according to his own claims (dead link on wikipedia) he was "Chief of the Cancer Program from 1997" (to 1999, just two years, two decades ago). But we also know that he falsely claimed to be professor on Imperial College, see also posts here.
- biofox 6y ago
  There are documents in the WHO's online archive which support the claim. E.g.: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331393/WH-1998-Sep-Oct-p19-20-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331393/WH-1...
  - acqq 6y ago
    Yes, thanks, there it is: "Dr Karol Sikora is Chief of the WHO Programme on Cancer Control" as per the magazine from "September--October 1998" 1) obviously not equivalent to "ex director at the WHO" 2) obviously more than 20 years ago 3) and "on cancer control", not on epidemiology still not anything to allow him to misrepresent his relation to Imperial College as late as 2020 (!) or to give a credence to his current epidemiological policy views.
compuguy 6y ago
His Wikipedia article mentions that he accepted a position as Chief of the Cancer Program of the World Health Organization for two years (1997-1999).

tupac_speedrap 6y ago

We can't do anything about it though, Google will just shrug off the blame on a dodgy algo and keep going.

rurban 6y ago
dodgy yes, but it's a conventional blacklist that was leaked before. what we can do is suing them. censorship became too popular recently.

otikik 6y ago

Is it this Karol Sikora? > Promotion of alternative medicine > Sikora and the School of Medicine at Buckingham have in the past been supportive of alternative medicine. For a short time, Buckingham offered a diploma in "integrated medicine" (a relatively recent euphemism for alternative medicine). Sikora was a Foundation Fellow of Prince Charles' now-defunct alternative medicine lobby group The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health[24] and Chair of the Faculty of Integrated Medicine, which is unaffiliated with any university; it includes Drs Rosy Daniel and Mark Atkinson, who led Buckingham's "integrated medicine" course. > > Sikora is also a "professional member" of the College of Medicine, a patient-oriented healthcare lobby group also linked to the Prince of Wales that appeared shortly after the collapse of the Prince's Foundation. The College has been criticised extensively in the British Medical Journal for its promotion of alternative medicine. These claims have been contested by the College. He is on the advisory panel of complementary cancer care charity Penny Brohn Cancer Care (formerly the Bristol Cancer Help Centre) of whom Prince Charles is a patron, and is a patron of the Iain Rennie Hospice at Home. Statements by Sikora have been critical of unproven methods of alternative medicine, after Parliament member Lord Maurice Saatchi proposed a bill allowing doctors to use unproven experimental therapies, and he has spoken out against claims that an alkaline diet can cure cancer. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora#Promotion_of_alternative_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora#Promotion_of_alte... It sounds like he might actually have infringed Youtube's "Harmful or dangerous content" guidelines: > Harmful or dangerous content > > Don't post videos that encourage others to do things that might cause them to get badly hurt, especially kids. Videos showing such harmful or dangerous acts may get age-restricted or removed depending on their severity. Source: https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Alternative medicine is mostly bunk, but I absolutely don't agree that it constitutes "harmful or dangerous countent" or should be banned from Youtube. Disputing the consensus should not by itself be forbidden, even when the consensus is accurate and important.
- 6y ago

mchusma 6y ago

I don't really care the content at all, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. In the US, I don't know an obvious issue besides legislative change to enforce this. However, once they consider themselves as "curators" of information with near-monopoly status, I hope they are litigated against successfully.

antpls 6y ago
YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more viewers = more ads. The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type of content they are allowed to show. The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them
- generalpass 6y ago
  > YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more viewers = more ads. > The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type of content they are allowed to show. > The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them This assumes they don't have the legal resources to fend off such a case.
- wodenokoto 6y ago
  No they would not like to be the phone company that pipes data around. For example: They could easily - but actively choose not to - host pornography. They do not want to host everything that is legal.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  The phone company was regulated by the government to be strictly neutral. We should aim for the same here.
jasode 6y ago
>, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. This suggestion (and the comparison to phone companies) comes up repeatedly but Youtube can't _be_ a neutral carrier if they are funded by advertising. That's because the businesses' choice to pay for advertising is not a neutral choice. See "advertiser friendly content"[1] and Adpocalypse[2][3]. Land line phones and cell phones are funded by subscriptions and they are also point-to-point communication between 2 private individuals. Phones (barring small-scale exceptions such as conference calls) are not a "broadcasting" medium. There is no broadcasting medium in the world that acts as a neutral carrier. Not newspapers. And not tv like NBC/CBS/ABC. Even the government funded broadcasters like American PBS or UK BBC are not neutral carriers. Ok, let's say you this ambitious idealism to create a new broadcasting website that allows anything except for child pornography. How are you going to fund it? Advertising?!? That's just recreating the Youtube "ad friendly" dilemma. Subscriptions? Most people don't want to pay a subscription fee for user-generated-content. Yes some die-hard web surfers pay for Youtube Red/Premium to avoid ads but they are a small minority that's not enough to pay for the entire Youtube infrastructure. So far, only funding based on advertising seems to be viable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertiser-friendly_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertise... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+youtube+adpocalypse https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+... [3] https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spend-new-ad-controversy/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spe...

SeanLuke 6y ago

> professor of medicine According to this guy's Wikipedia page, he has claimed many times to be a professor of oncology at Imperial College: but he is not, and Imperial College has sought legal options to stop him from making this claim. The page is full of other fairly astonishing stuff, not the least of which is apparent fraud connected with the Lockerbie Bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora I get the feeling that there's more to this story than this article suggests.

alexpetralia 6y ago
This is the quote from Wikipedia: "Sikora told The Guardian that he did not know he would be used in the ad campaign, and that he agreed with Obama about the American health care system. In the attack ad, Sikora was referred to as professor of oncology at Imperial College. This led Imperial to seek legal advice to stop Sikora from claiming to be a professor of cancer medicine at Imperial; a claim that he was understood to have made repeatedly over the previous five years." . Here is The Guardian source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/22/karol-sikora-honorary-professor-imperial-college https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/22/karol-sikora... "Although the US advert did not state a link to Imperial, at the end of piece written by Sikora on the day it was first aired, 12 May, for UnionLeader.com, he was described as professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College school of medicine, London. ... "I'm very careful not to involve either my NHS contract with Hammersmith or Imperial in anything that's political," he said. "I'm a consultant at Hammersmith hospital, nobody would dispute that. It's true I can't call myself professor of cancer medicine at Imperial, but I can at Buckingham. The trouble is when I get quoted somewhere, they just use the old stuff." However, on 29 January, Sikora gave evidence to the Commons health select committee. Introducing himself, he said: "I am Karol Sikora, professor of oncology at Imperial College for 22 years."" . I believe it is possible the advertisement made this association without his consent; however I agree it is problematic if he represented to the Commons health select committee that he is a professor at Imperial. Personally, I don't find this damning evidence enough to eradicate his credibility.
- oh_sigh 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 6y ago

> The serology results around the world (and forthcoming in Britain) don’t necessarily reveal the percentage of people who have had the disease > He estimates 25-30% of the UK population has had Covid-19, and higher in the group that is most susceptible Here's the Office for National Statistics household survey results. This is only people living in households. (It doesn't include hospital patients, or people living in care or nursing homes). https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england21may2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... > Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 4 May to 17 May 2020, an average of 137,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 85,000 to 208,000). This equates to 0.25% (95% confidence interval: 0.16% to 0.38%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 14,599 people in 7,054 households. Frustratingly they haven't said yet how many people in total they think have ever had covid-19, but it's not going to be anywhere near 15million people in the UK.

MattGaiser 6y ago

I suggest everyone read this fellow's Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora

ppod 6y ago
Do you think that such people should be banned from content distribution channels?
- scarface74 6y ago
  Yes. You have the right to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to force someone else to publish it. If you want to publish what you want free of interference, pay for your own servers and bandwidth.
  - ppod 6y ago
    Of course, but I'm not asking about what rights distributors should have, I'm asking normatively whether a distributor should ban people like this.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      A distributor is a private business that has the right to ban anyone they want except for protected classes. He can be his own distributor that’s the power of the internet.
      - ppod 6y ago
        Of course. As I said, I'm not asking what rights they have. I'm asking what you think. If you were youtube, would you ban this video?
        scarface74 6y ago
        I prefer the way that FB does it. If you share information that is false, they overlay it with a warning saying that the post is probably false and let you click on it and view it.

ppod 6y ago

Is there any way if I can find out why my submission is flagged? The last thing I submitted was also flagged (and then unflagged), but I have tried to abide by the submission guidelines.

alexpetralia 6y ago
I find it bizarre also. I don't think this something dang is doing - he provided a pretty legitimate defense here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23225442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23225442 However I do think there are "flag mobs" which increasingly flag posts they don't agree with.
- ppod 6y ago
  Yeah, I don't even think it has to be mob, it's just one of those things that happens as a site becomes more mainstream. Ironically it's related to the same issue as the submission: people equate permitting something to condoning it.
Antecedent 6y ago
You have editorialized the title of the article. The expectation is generally that you use the original.
- ppod 6y ago
  Well ok. The reason I changed it was because I thought the original was too sensational
dang 6y ago
The site guidelines ask you to email hn@ycombinator.com with questions like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things, but in this case I suppose it might have been a combination of users who are fatigued by this general topic having been repeated so frequently in recent weeks, and users who agree with the decision to take down the interview and don't think HN should have a thread about it. As I said, though—those are just guesses. In the meantime, someone else reposted it and it was on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23258432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23258432. But since this post was first, I've turned off the flags on it and merged those comments hither.

DSingularity 6y ago

The virus is “getting tired” globally at the same time!? That sounds almost mystical.

thomasahle 6y ago
Wasn't that what people were predicting would happen in the summer since the beginning? And then probably with a rebound in autumn/next winter.
- yorwba 6y ago
  That's not so great news for the southern half of the planet.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  1. No, people weren't predicting that the virus would "get tired". 2. Even if we generously interpret this as meaning that the virus would be less infectious in warmer weather, the only evidence we had pointed to this as only a possibility, rather than something we could predict. 3. As summer has begun in the Northern hemisphere, we still don't have any good evidence that the virus is less infectious in warmer weather--certainly not in the Southern US where the disease continues to spread unchecked.
  - dekhn 6y ago
    All predictions about seasonality were made using analogy to similar viruses which have shown that sort of behavior. I am not aware of any high quality scientific evidence supporting seasonality (or nonseasonality). I think that only really becomes available after several seasons; predictions aren't super helpful here.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I don't think it is generous to believe "getting tired" was used metaphorically. On the other hand, perhaps you are right and this medical doctor really thinks the virus is a singular entity, with thoughts and feelings.

Gravyness 6y ago

This isn't the first time it happened nor will it be the last. Here in my country (Brazil) they invited an actual toxicologist, professor and ambassador of medical facility in São Paulo (since 2009) to speak live at CNN but when he mentioned that there's an over-exageration in terms of deadlyness and started putting actual data, studies and past examples in his speech, he was promptly and unapologetically interupted, we can even hear someone say "cut" in the broadcast, before the newswomans interupts him by saying, I kid you not, "We cannot continue the interview because the doctor is not able to listen to us..." all while the doctor was made silent by this statement. Makes me wonder who makes these decisions.

Apaec 6y ago
Do you have a link for further reading?

dboreham 6y ago

It would be great to see peer-reviewed papers, or even raw data to support these assertions.

alabaster_punt 6y ago

Hardly surprising that a video full of dangerous misinformation has been pulled. It would be worth reading about this particular professor on Wikipedia, particularly his support for alternative medicine, his false claim to have been a professor at Imperial college, and his claim that the UK's NHS is "the last bastion of communism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora

DiffEq 6y ago
So what is so dangerous about it? Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as to what danger really is. I don't know these people that made the video and I don't subscribe to magic crystals or whatever they are pushing/saying but I do know what Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson from Imperial college created in his flawed modeling - a world wide panic. That is what has been dangerous. Google is a private company I suppose and they can do whatever they want but it would be better to leave their videos up so they can be "peer reviewed" and mocked if what they are saying is farcical. Just like we do with these ladies: https://youtu.be/B4s9GLWiUJM https://youtu.be/B4s9GLWiUJM
- alabaster_punt 6y ago
  What's dangerous about it is that it's encouraging people to demand that their government enact policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths. Neil Ferguson's model was not flawed (at least, not in a significant way that would invalidate its conclusions)
  - s9w 6y ago
    Oh boy I wouldn't be so sure after having a look at it on github.
    - alabaster_punt 6y ago
      If you have a specific reason to believe that the model resulted in an incorrect conclusion, feel free to share it, instead of casting aspersions with cryptic nothings.

kerkeslager 6y ago

There are two separate issues here: 1. Non-science: calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Sikora is also a fellow of The Princes Foundation For Integrated Health and a professional member of the generically-named College Of Medicine. Both of these organizations are lobbyists which promote alternative medicine. 2. Censorship: rather than allow conversation where real scientists can respond to Sikora's nonsense with facts, YouTube decided to push his followers into their own echo chambers where pieces like this which represents him as a martyr go unchallenged. Sakora isn't a martyr: he's either an insane person or an amoral profiteering liar who doesn't care if his lies get people killed. But I don't think censorship is the answer to lies. Truth is the answer to lies.

alabaster_punt 6y ago
Sakora is the latter, and the problem with this viewpoint is publishing the truth elsewhere doesn't stop people from absorbing the lies here. Somebody consuming this content is not likely to seek out alternative viewpoints to correct themselves. The information is dangerous, it should not be available.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > Somebody consuming this content is not likely to seek out alternative viewpoints to correct themselves. Which is why it's important that we present the truth right next to it, so people don't have to look elsewhere. > The information is dangerous, it should not be available. Well, it is available, in places where the truth isn't available, so I don't really know what you think taking it off YouTube has achieved.
  - alabaster_punt 6y ago
    > Which is why it's important that we present the truth right next to it, so people don't have to look elsewhere. This still assumes that people will be willing to watch it. > Well, it is available, in places where the truth isn't available, so I don't really know what you think taking it off YouTube has achieved. It has achieved a lower spread of misinformation. Now nobody browsing YouTube will happen upon this video by chance and start believing something that is false and dangerous. Of course, those who are already embedded in these communities will still be able to access the information elsewhere. It is not a perfect solution, I don't think there is a perfect solution, but it does reduce the impact.

JSavageOne 6y ago

Google is a totalitarian institution and this is offensive to anyone who values free speech

takeda 6y ago
Google is not a government organization is a private platform. It generally does not get involved in things like that, but the amounts of misinformation is staggering. I have family members affected by this and it looks like it is a targeted misinformation attack. It starts with Facebook posts, which then often direct you to youtube channels which are condition people into crazier and crazier theories. It is so weird, because many of these theories even contradict themselves, yet people still believe them. The guy in article is also an oncologist and he talks about subject that is not his expertise. It's like asking a front end engineer how to best design the a new data center. This is especially dangerous since we are currently in middle of pandemic and many people will trust his advice.
- lukifer 6y ago
  There's a relevant engineering axiom, that a sufficient quantitative difference amounts to a qualitative difference (sometimes phrased as "quantity has a quality all its own"). At some ineffable point, a "private platform" of sufficient scope becomes a Commons, resembling a social substrate more than a mere voluntary exchange between individuals. A historical equivalent would be "company towns", with goods only available from company stores, exchanged in company scrip, etc. [0] Obviously, from a purely legal perspective, you are 100% correct. Google is under no obligation to uphold a principle of free speech, non-favoritism, etc., and it would take significant new legislation or regulation to change that. Nonetheless, in terms of the role that is being played in society and culture, tech giants in general, and Google/Facebook in particular, are wielding disproportionate (and arguably ideologically biased) influence, bordering on an attempt to control narratives and ideas. It's perfectly legitimate to find this trend concerning without supporting the particular ideas being suppressed (I think Plandemic/InfoWars/etc, are utter nonsense). I believe such actions tend to be counter-productive: (a) isolating and ostracizing those who are falling for bad ideas only reinforces their beliefs and persecution complex, while obstructing the path back to better ideas; and (b) every once in a while a seemingly-crazy idea turns out to be true (it's instructive the extent to which it was a fight uphill for germ theory to be accepted by the experts of the day [1]). There simply isn't a magic wand that sifts good ideas from bad, a priori; and if the power to make that decision is centralized, even with the best of intentions, whoever wields it will inevitably make mistakes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#John_Snow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#John_Sn...

acituan 6y ago

I don’t agree with the interview contents, nor think professorship alone gives sufficient credibility in the face of a novel pandemic, data of which is in the process of emerging. That said, I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not. They don’t have in-house experts on these domains, they don’t have a magic epistemology machine that spits out the “facts”. They are good at writing web services, they shouldn’t be in charge of things like sound epidemiology. I always imagine past figures that had adversarial relationships with authority at their times like Socrates, Galileo or Jesus and realize how Youtube would definitely take their videos down, shut their channels down and Susan Wojcicki would say things like “on matters of geocentricity vs heliocentricity we will follow the expert opinion of Catholic Church”. Then I think how might we be hurting ourselves today in ways we don’t even know by letting these tech institutions be the ultimate arbiter of our meaning making machinery.

gameswithgo 6y ago
Youtube isn't in charge of what is credible or not. Youtube is in charge of what shows up on youtube or not. There are many categories of things that can't be on youtube, not just things youtube thinks are incorrect. Should youtube overstep its bounds, that makes it easier for competitors to enter the video streaming market. It seems like libertarian leaning people forget half of their philosophy on this issue.
- achillesheels 6y ago
  >It seems like libertarian leaning people forget half of their philosophy on this issue. Because they are "drunk" on theory. To grind out a new video hosting platform is a lot of work.
- mfer 6y ago
  This gets a bit into monopolies. YouTube is Google and Google prioritizes its own properties. Google is the most widely used search engine and works hard to keep it that way. Is there a way to easily have popular interviews online outside of YouTube?

downerending 6y ago

Instead of pussyfooting around, it'd be nice if YouTube would just tell us explicitly what we're supposed to think.

wiskinator 6y ago
That's HackerNew's job.
stevehawk 6y ago
What I love about comments like this is that "we" (the citizens) are demanding that websites filter out X, Y, and Z, and then at same time come back yelling at them when they do. Censorship and lack of censorship come at a cost and you have to be willing to pay one of them.
dlp211 6y ago
You act like information isn't constantly being curated in all forms of knowledge delivery. The same way we don't tolerate students attempting to derail professors in class with unfounded hypothesis or flawed logical arguments, Youtube doesn't have to tolerate the same on its platform. Disclaimer: Work at Google, thoughts are my own.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- downerending 6y ago
  There's a lot of difference between preventing a student shouting down a professor in class with some crap argument and the college telling the student they're not allowed to quietly discuss an "unfounded hypothesis" in some corner with another student. The beauty (theoretically) of platforms like YouTube is that we can watch what we like and skip what we don't without harming any other user. And as for qualifications, if an oncologist isn't qualified to have an opinion on COVID-19, YouTube sure as hell isn't.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

This is a bad trend. If scientists in China contradicted the government (and directly - the WHO), it seems like YouTube would have censored them. Debate is what sustains free society and free society will perish when certain narratives become unquestionable.

drunkpotato 6y ago

YouTube consistently followed their policy of removing videos which promote misinformation, disinformation, and policy proposals that contradict the World Health Organization's official guidelines during an emergency pandemic. I have my problems with YouTube, but this isn't censorship, and it isn't a conspiracy to silence anyone. It's an effort to be responsible to public health and safety. The hysteria I see here is completely unwarranted.

ksk 6y ago
An advertising company deciding what is credible or not is scary.
- drunkpotato 6y ago
  But YouTube is not deciding on the credibility of the video. They are simply saying that in this emergency, in the interests of public safety, they will not allow videos that contradict World Health Organization information and policy guidelines. And they removed a video that violated that policy. It's a very narrowly defined exception to their normally open platform. I don't see what is scary or sinister about that.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > But YouTube is not deciding on the credibility of the video. They are simply saying that in this emergency, in the interests of public safety, they will not allow videos that contradict World Health Organization information and policy guidelines. No, YouTube still is determining credibility. YouTube is still saying, "this video is misinformation and we are removing it." The fact that it's treating the WHO information as the baseline does not change the fact that YouTube is deciding credibility, and removing videos that do not meet it's criteria for credibility.
  - joeclark77 6y ago
    How does it make it better that they've arbitrarily decided to censor videos that contradict China's volunteer propaganda agency?

KCUOJJQJ 6y ago

I hope YouTube only removes a little bit. It seems so to me. A lot of similar information is still available. Also, the videos that should be deleted before any others are the videos about the claim that it's better to be too afraid than too little, for instance. If people deliberately increase their fear, they become irrational like Francis E. Dec, who believed in the "Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God". The difference is that Dec had no doubts, and didn't choose to ignore doubts and to deliberately be afraid the most.

lmilcin 6y ago

(redacted voluntarily)

dang 6y ago
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. Internet threads can't handle denunciatory rhetoric without collapsing. It's the way the medium works, and we have to consciously compensate for it, if we're going to keep curious conversation going here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lmilcin 6y ago
  I think flamewar is for when people will have polarized views on a particular topic and the poster posts only to bring the people to fight each other. My post is what I think a necessary reminder in a topic that I honestly don't think is very polarizing. It just needs to be repeated, over, and over again. The same way it gets taught to kids at school so they teach it to their kids, and so on. Because it is important. Think about this: if something is taught to kids at school, how can you justify objecting to it on HN (I mean unless it is a topic that is obviously incorrectly taught, which I suppose this is not one of them)?
  - dang 6y ago
    This is a site for curiosity, and repetition and curiosity don't go together. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20repetition&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... Multiply that 10x when the repetition is indignant or inflammatory. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20indig&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I doubt that you would want other commenters to drill you like a schoolchild, but even if I'm wrong about that, please don't do it to others on this site. We're trying for entirely the opposite sort of discussion. Basically, if it's predictable, it is off topic here.
    - 6y ago

atomashpolskiy 6y ago

Lots of great points made in this thread. Question is, what can we do about it as a collection of individuals? Hackers often like to pretend to be apolitical, when faced with political issues. No wonder, escaping from the turmoils of the real world in technology has always been a sweet sweet delusion. Now the technology itself becomes an instrument of politics, and there's no place left to hide.

dpeterson 6y ago

Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous. Platforms like Youtube are beyond ubiquitous and we all depend on them. The companies behind them have more money than countries. That, combined with the tax free private foundations their founders nearly all have, is taking us down some very bad roads. Of course, those roads are always paved with the best intentions and for our own good. I think it is well past time government step in and limit the power and control mega corporations flex on their platforms and on our public policy in nearly all matters.

exolymph 6y ago
> Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous. YouTube is not a monopoly. There are other websites where you can post or watch video. Not as many people choose to use them, but you're not entitled to their attention anyway.
- theandrewbailey 6y ago
  Existence of competition doesn't stop courts from considering a company to be a monopoly. You could have used a Mac and Netscape in the 90s, but the US went after Microsoft anyway.
joeclark77 6y ago
On top of that, you have to realize that these countries (YT, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are completely obedient to the government of China. Not because it's their biggest market, but because China will shut them out if they don't toe the line. Whereas the US and Europe have never indicated a willingness to sanction these companies no matter what. It's a tyranny of the minority.
- gundmc 6y ago
  Literally every one of those sites is blocked in China...

jansan 6y ago

I am currently watching the video on YouTube. How is it banned?

noelsusman 6y ago

The video seems to be back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg. Probably got caught up in some sort of automated COVID misinformation algorithm. Given the content of the video, I'm not inclined to place much weight on their side of the story here. This feels like fake outrage to drive views.

bzb3 6y ago
The video actually get removed, how is this "fake outrage"

okreallywtf 6y ago

I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while misinformation is doing damage right this second. The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I think of is that when presented with a table full of junk food, its hard to get people to pay attention to the veggie platter. This study[1] indicates more success could be had with a new narrative that doesn't just refute the misinformation, but crafts a new narrative with additional information that can dislodge the other one, like a flank attack instead a head on one. Anecdotally I've seen that work and I've also been guilty of the lazy head on approach and seen it fail. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134904.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134904.h...

zupreme 6y ago
And THAT is exactly the issue. "Misinformation" uses the prefix "Mis", which is "...a prefix applied to various parts of speech, meaning “ill,” “mistaken,” “wrong,” “wrongly,” “incorrectly,” or simply negating: mistrial; misprint; mistrust." As the Covid-19 situation, prognoses, diagnoses, testing procedures, and far more are PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be flawed, it is RIDICULOUS to silence ANYONE, let alone legitimate experts, even if they are engaging in WILD speculation. FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY MATTERS WHEN THE SPEECH IS DISLIKED. Think over that...deeply...speculation and experimentation may save your life....or not. wa inna Allahu Al Alim
- benignslime 6y ago
  Yeah see, people don't think, deeply, about anything.
- CyanBird 6y ago
  Oh that's very much true But as stated this is not a freedom of speech issue as YouTube is not the government and nobody is entitled to their private platform
6y ago

bilekas 6y ago

This is where it doesn't matter. YouTube does not have an obligation to leave everything up there at all. Given that this interview is misleading at best, and dangerous at worst. It's up to YouTube to decide if it wants to be used as a vehicle. Personally I'm glad they took it down. I want to get out and would love to go back to old normal. We all would. But I don't want to get sic before a vaccine is ready, and I don't want people I know and love to get sick either. If you're getting upset about the actions of youtube, the fact is they are full within their rights to do whatever they like with their platform. As for the free speech argument : Companies are not required to give space to ideas or viewpoints they do not wish to be associated with. https://pacificlegal.org/a-first-amendment-win-supreme-court-rules-the-government-cant-control-private-speech/ https://pacificlegal.org/a-first-amendment-win-supreme-court... https://casetext.com/case/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck https://casetext.com/case/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-...

throwaway52120 6y ago

Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little. Let no good catastrophe go to waste. With each, we lose a little freedom and the populace resounds in joy. Not because they want less freedom, no, it's because they think they've triumphed over a common evil: the dissenters. These cycles always include labeling the enemy, and it's usually the ones who disagree or challenge the state. The common man isn't an expert in virology, world politics, or terrorism. Yet, if you look at the ones upholding and defending the position of the state, they're just laymen. Their opinions are fiercely held without question and expertise. All you have to do is label the enemy, make that label an adjective that the average-person would reject at first glance (conspiracy theorist, extremist, etc.), then assign that label to anyone who dissents from the state's position. After that, it's just policymaking for the "greater good".

foolinaround 6y ago
>Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little. beautifully stated. Or the more common "boiling a frog slowly" If we do not fight for our freedoms, our children will get used to the reduced freedoms as a 'new normal' and it will only get more repressive
- megablast 6y ago
  Or slippery slope.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Boiling a frog slowly is a sound argument against any form of heating even while you are freezing to death. Existing platforms could be misused by private actors in a way that negatively effects the populace. Arguably most of the people presently concerned are either a majority of bad actors or a minority of idealists concerned about future potential. To the worthy minority I would suggest that difficult to censor platforms are probably trivially realizable in mid term especially if substantially desirable or needed. I don't think censorship by platforms like YouTube is being misused now and the massive risk remains censorship by state actors. I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy not less while working on maturing decentralized options to the net benefit in the short to mid term as a hedge against tyranny that will virtually certainly primarily remain the province of state actors.

buboard 6y ago

Among other things, social media facilitate exchanges between scientists. Unherd has a series of very good interviews with various viewpoints on the disease. Youtube should be ashamed

flowerlad 6y ago

Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. Social media has made it too easy to spread dangerous levels of misinformation and hate online. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to YouTube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization purposes, adversarial nations were spreading fake news to influence who gets elected, and others were even live-streaming mass murders. This has caused an upheaval in societal mores as regards free speech. Enough is enough! There needs to be limits. Communities started imposing limits to free speech. For example, UC Berkeley, renowned for giving birth to the Free Speech Movement, made news for banning harmful speech, such as that by Ann Coulter. This is a natural evolution of societal mores. This particular evolution was a reaction to the excesses and abuses seen in social media. This type of censorship, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal. We live in a new world. Malicious individuals and groups now have the power to reach hundreds of millions instantly, at no cost to themselves. The old rules no longer apply. Some say if you disagree with someone else's speech you should not just ban them, you should defeat them by arguing against their ideas. But when state-sponsored actors spread fake news and divisive ads at a massive scale on social media you can’t simply defeat them by arguing against their ideas. How do you counter it? By buying opposing ads on Facebook? Even if you have pockets as deep as Putin’s, what a waste of money that would be! This is a new world and the old methods are no longer applicable. Communities and social media companies will need to engage in some censorship.

BFatts 6y ago

There are several points that contradict the consensus opinion, at this time. Such as the statement "More schools should reopen in June as ‘children are not the transmitters of this virus’" is totally refuted at this point. There is plenty of evidence that children transmit the disease like any other human.

nradov 6y ago
The latest research indicates that younger children are not significant transmitters of this virus. There is little scientific basis to support keeping primary schools closed. The risk may be higher with older children. https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-and-covid-19 https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-a...

ThomPete 6y ago

Youtube can do what they want but let's not forget that they use WHO as a guideline for what is considered within the Overton window. WHO has repeatedly been wrong on a number of occasions not the least mask, travel bans, and very slow to call this a pandemic. The is btw zero evidence that having fake prophets on youtube is endangering public health and this is unfortunately an excuse for people who like to tell others what to do, to pretend they are doing it for the public good.

chrischen 6y ago

These types of censorship patterns are identical to that employed by China in intent. The practical consequences are the same as well. In China information censorship is due to the government trying to promote peace and harmony. Aka, the government thinks it knows what’s best for people and forces it on people. Facebook et al also encounter these same problems, where they see people spreading “misinformation.” It’s a hard problem to solve, but they essentially resort to taking the same types of censorship as China that everyone so easily criticizes. The irony is Google is now doing it too after claiming to have left the market due to forced censorship. Some people may cite China’s censorship/banning of Falun Gong. What people don’t bother to look into is that Falun Gong is an anti-gay, really out there cult. Their censorship justifications of that is not unlike censoring “fake news” like this “doctor.” While it may be right (of course their methodology may be questionable), it completely short circuits the ability for critical thinkers to actually analyze all content. It’s done supposedly for the greater good.

bilekas 6y ago
> These types of censorship patterns are identical to that employed by China in intent. The practical consequences are the same as well. They're not identical, the state doesn't determine YouTubes actions.
- the8472 6y ago
  Legislators puts pressure on them. E.g. by threatening to repeal CDA or bring other regulation if they do not self-regulate and "do something" about content they deem problematic for one reason or another.
  - bilekas 6y ago
    Thats funny, I always thought it was business' lobbying the government to change policies..
    - the8472 6y ago
      Those things are not mutually exclusive. Politicians ask for things that make them look good, companies ask for things that benefit their bottom line. As long as conspiracy theorists are not youtube's cashcow and tax cuts can be sold as improving the economy for everyone both sides benefit.

garyclarke27 6y ago

Appalling behaviour by YouTube. Until recently I admired Google, no longer, this kind of opinion based censorship (facts have yet to be established re covid), makes my blood boil, Google must be urgently regulated to protect free speech.

burke_holland 6y ago

Looks alive and well to me... https://youtu.be/uk2YZfnsOPg https://youtu.be/uk2YZfnsOPg

takeda 6y ago
So just guerilla advertising? So weird, that video is in the article that claims it was banned.
- raspasov 6y ago
  I would have been really surprised if they actually removed it. The points made in the video are mostly sensible. They acknowledge the many unknowns. It more or less advocates for the Swedish model of dealing with this vs. most other countries.
  - busymom0 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266336
  - RandomTisk 6y ago
    Google deleted / censored CSPAN video of a Senator on the floor of the Senate[0]. [0] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/c-span-video-of-rand-paul-reading-censored-impeachment-trial-question-taken-down-on-twitter/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/c-span-video-of-ran...
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      That article is about a Tweet being taken down, not about Google. Also that article says > It is not clear whether C-SPAN or Twitter took down the video.
      - RandomTisk 6y ago
        My bad, here's a better link. It's hard to find a "mainstream" source because most of the old media is ignoring a lot of newsworthy items these days. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/13/rand-paul-blasts-youtube-over-censorship-of-speech-on-senate-floor/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/13/rand-paul-blasts-y... It's widely known that Google/Youtube took down any videos where the name of the supposed whistleblower were being mentioned, at least according to a lot of regular content creators who had videos deleted or shadow banned.

swiley 6y ago

Google’s entire business is pathological mass manipulation of what people think for hire. Using Google software and services is dangerous and irresponsible. De-platform now!

throw7 6y ago

If that video was "banned" on youtube, how am I able to view it on youtube? The first few statements he makes are bit eye-raising and I didn't continue listening but: "many of the people who died would've died at the exact same time anyway" I wonder the source or how he knows. He says it so matter of factly that I'm sceptical.

cfmcdonald 6y ago

I can't help but wonder if there is a generational divide occurring in these censorship debates. Some contributors to the discussion seem to believe that everyone has a natural right to post a video and have it available to (if not see by) a global audience. As someone who grew up in the 1980s this is a strange point-of-view to me, but I can see how it might feel more natural to someone who came of age in the 2010s.

AgentME 6y ago
This is getting more into forums than platforms like YouTube, but I like how the article "Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism" (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...) describes this divide: >Maybe it's because I grew up on the Internet in places where there was always a sysop, and so I take for granted that whoever runs the server has certain responsibilities. Maybe I understand on a gut level that the opposite of censorship is not academia but 4chan (which probably still has mechanisms to prevent spam). Maybe because I grew up in that wide open space where the freedom that mattered was the freedom to choose a well-kept garden that you liked and that liked you, as if you actually could find a country with good laws. Maybe because I take it for granted that if you don't like the archwizard, the thing to do is walk away (this did happen to me once, and I did indeed just walk away). I think many people coming to the internet nowadays have had their formative internet experiences on large social media sites, where moderation is both impersonal and rare, to the point that users don't bother understanding it because it's unlikely to affect them, and then if it does affect them, the reasons for it aren't understood and they feel singled out. When these people hear someone talk about smaller better-moderated places, they can't understand the appeal, as if it were proposed to them that a site would be better with more boogeymen.
JackRabbitSlim 6y ago
“[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” -- Justice Hugo Black, majority opinion in Marsh Vs Alabama. Youtube et al certainly encourage the free and public flow of traffic. Their business model depends on it. So their responsibility to the public would seem to obviously overshadow the perceived protections as a "private company". I was also a child of the 80's

radiantmonk 6y ago

Strange, the video link in the article is to YouTube. It plays fine for me.

ycombonator 6y ago

They will remove anything that doesn’t tow the WHO line. Aka globalists.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

biztos 6y ago

Am I the only one bothered by people talking about “censorship” in this context? A private company chose to remove content from its service because it considers that content to be bad, and probably in violation of its terms. Did the government force it to do so? Is somebody preventing the owner of the video from hosting it on their own web site? Censorship is a real thing in the world, and so is crying wolf.

brink 6y ago
I'd be more willing to have this conversation if Youtube had actual competition.
- biztos 6y ago
  Isn’t Facebook competition? But I don’t see why that matters. If I can’t get published in the mainstream media, but I have plenty of options in the alternative media, is that censorship?
s1artibartfast 6y ago
There is censorship and government censorship. Both are real and people can have valid opinions on both. I like it when the government censors child pornography, but I don't like it when they censor political speech. I like it when corporations censors child pornography, not not when they censor minority opinions on covid policy
- biztos 6y ago
  Ok but then how are we to distinguish Corporate Censorship from Corporation Chooses Not To Publish My Opinion? If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count? If it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to publish on my universally accessible blog? If it’s just that “not publishing what I want them to publish” counts as censorship then (as per my first, unloved comment) I think it’s a perversion of the term. Many places have real censorship, as in “publish this idea and you go to jail.” If I’ve got it wrong, please, enlighten me.

tibbydudeza 6y ago

He is a oncologist so not an expert in the field of epidemiology. The virus is getting "tired" ... really. Lots of these contrarian "experts" popping up in youtube channels with rather slick production values (wonder who is funding them) about social distancing and lock down policies.

alterego2 6y ago

Censorship kills. The whole COVID pandemic could arguably be avoided if China haven't decided to silence another doctor who disagreed with the official point of view.

ibejoeb 6y ago

Susan Wojcicki has publicly stated over a month ago that the current policy is to remove content that is not in line with WHO's positions. https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-against-who-guidance-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-ag...

jb775 6y ago

It's probably about time we start discussing as a developer community how to take meaningful actions to curb this behavior. Putting the particular topic details here aside, I think everyone can agree it's very troubling that a platform with as much power as Google is actively censoring speech they do not agree with. Not sure what the best action points would be, but I'm thinking we start by speaking with our companies about redirecting ad-spending away from Google, pausing any active development related to integrating Google products and seek out alternatives, removing/replacing Google analytics (since this is where tons of value is created for Google and allows them to follow users basically everywhere), and seriously talk about unionization next-steps. Thoughts?

ibigb 6y ago

I used to get upset with untruths being published. But then I found that humans are evolving and it is an individual evolution, not really a herd evolution, and each individual must learn to discern what is true and what is false. It is Life Course 110. Imagine what wimps humans would be if everything were sanitized, there were no challenges. How would the human race grow strong? Challenges are there to make you strong, one not easily manipulated by Youtube, governments, religions, "experts" and so on. So stay awake, and see if you are being manipulated. Would Life be useful if it didn't challenge you? A certain amount of life's challenges are a blessing, too many challenges...well we don't want that.

mrfusion 6y ago

If nothing else it just makes it look like they’re hiding something and encourages more interest.

anm89 6y ago

Of course he should be censored! Despite his probable decade of medical training, he believes the wrong thing.

wesammikhail 6y ago
So HN should sensor you now because the Gods of HN believe that you believe in the wrong thing. Yea makes sense. This is certainly going to end well /s

raspasov 6y ago

Am I confused or the video is currently on YouTube? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg

takeda 6y ago
The article that says it was banned, links to it, LOL.
busymom0 6y ago
It was reinstated: https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1263518352347148288 https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/12635183523471482...

xlc0212 6y ago

Media can either be evil and censor information to potentially save life, or respect freedom of speech which could lead to severe consequences. Which side are you in? There is no correct answer and we just have to admit we are in a bad situation which does not exist an win-win solution.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ehsankia 6y ago

tl;dr: There are millions of videos about COVID-19 being uploaded to Youtube and they have a non-zero false-positive rate. This was accidentally removed and promptly restored upon manual review. Basically nothing to see here.

ta17711771 6y ago
> promptly restored upon manual review. Promptly restored upon viral traction of outrage...just like that podcast app was....
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Exactly. What else aren't we hearing about that's being arbitrarily censored by YouTube? And can we really trust it as a platform? I'm losing more trust in Google every day. 10 years ago was "don't be evil." Now, they're just, "be only as evil as you can get away with."
  - busymom0 6y ago
    The situation is very similar to what's happening with a lot of Android developers. Many incidents where their app gets banned or removed for silly things. One I remember was getting removed because they had the word "windows" in their play store metadata and Google banned it because of having third party platform name. Except the app was using the term "windows" in reference to a house window, not the OS. Emailing play store support is pretty much useless unless you are a big company or can generate enough viral outrage on social media for them to notice.
    - thefounder 6y ago
      At least on Android you can sideload apps...that's not the case on iOS
      - busymom0 6y ago
        I develop apps for both iOS and Android. There's pros and cons to both. I prefer developing for iOS as there's more money in it plus I enjoy the platform more but if people want more customization, Android is definitely better.

nihonde 6y ago

YouTube has been deleting the excellent MedCram series and then recommending videos with titles like “China lied!” In my feed...because I subscribe to MedCram.

gfxgirl 6y ago

I tried to add that Japan's test on Favipiravir is showing no efficacy for COVID. It's news all over Japan on May 20th. Wikipedia rejected the edit. Google "Avigan" (the brand name for Favipiravir) in news and it will come up but TPTB at wikipedia decided it was fake news and reverted the edit. The article used to say "Japan to start trials of Favipiravir for treatment of COVID-19". Changed to "Japan tests showing Favipiravir not effective against COVID-19". Removed.