17 ms·

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 p

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?
  - root_axis 6y ago
    Their monopoly is meaningless in the context of all the knowledge freely available within the entirety of the internet, not to mention all the knowledge freely available outside the internet in the form of books which still happen to be the definitive medium to learn about anything with any type of serious rigor.
- mudil 6y ago
  According to your philosophy, we should already have a competitor to Boeing cranking up new airplanes.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    It's called Airbus.
root_axis 6y ago
> I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not This point is often repeated during discussions on these topics but I believe this is an inaccurate characterization. YouTube is not "in charge of deciding what is credible" in the fashion that kind of phrasing suggests; they are moderating the content on their platform with respect to their business process and company values, those decisions are not a reflection of credibility. YouTube is a corporate product and we should not encourage the narrative that this product is the zenith of knowledge even though there are knowledgeable people who put content on YouTube.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  A lot of people who blame Youtube for oppressing their right to disinform other people, would immediately oppress other people if they had the chance.
  - JungleGymSam 6y ago
    Sounds so scary! I'm shivering with fear. Thank you, YouTube! I'm too stupid to think for myself.
- AbrahamParangi 6y ago
  I’ll reiterate a point I’ve made before: the ultimate question is whether YouTube (and other social media platforms) should be permitted both the power to control on their platform as well as the freedom from liability of a common carrier. They exist in a limbo where they have their cake and eat it too- which I think is ultimately untenable.
  - Justsignedup 6y ago
    The problem we face is that social media is about echoing information, not validity, which is how misinformation spreads so rapidly, because it sounds like what people want to hear. There is no precedent in human history in such a thing. A private entity which controls so much public understanding and opinion. Making YouTube liable for content would go a long way in helping keep YT content honest, and solve the moderator problem. YT will either moderate or die. The reason YT could get so popular is because they neither have to moderate, nor fact check, but still get the benefits of being informational. This is true for ALL social media, unfortunately. How would one go about moderating the thousands of hours of content produced every hour in TikTok? Etc.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zumu 6y ago
The fact there is a global pandemic going on that requires the cooperation of virtually everyone is important context here. Meanwhile, YouTube does little moderation of zany philosophical, conspiratorial, or otherwise disruptive, unconventional content. The ideas of Galieo, Socrates, Jesus etc. fall into this category. That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis. I don't agree with censorship, but your analogy is off base.
- javagram 6y ago
  > That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis. I think the figures running the Inquisition and the counter-reformation at the time of Galileo might have disagreed. Remember the 30 Years War was also ongoing from 1618-1648 during the whole time, a Catholic-Protestant religious conflict that engulfed all of Europe and resulted in 8 million deaths. Bucking the authority of the Church/inquisition at that time was seen as a serious issue against social order in a way that’s hard for us to understand from a modern perspective. BTW, I strongly disagree with the this video, but really not sure if YouTube removing it is the right way to do this or will be effective in suppressing virus truthers.
  - zumu 6y ago
    True, but Galileo's work was not a direct commentary on said crisis (30 Years War). On the other hand, this "professor" is presenting an analysis of an ongoing crisis and suggesting concrete actions on how it should be handled. > Bucking the authority of the Church/inquisition at that time was seen as a serious issue against social order in a way that’s hard for us to understand from a modern perspective. Exactly my point. You can criticize the powers and be and the social order today with impunity on YouTube.
- xamuel 6y ago
  >The ideas of Galieo, Socrates, Jesus etc. fall into this category. That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis. Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands before they eat." (...) Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, "Listen and understand. A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it. (...) For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him." (Matthew 15:1-2, 10-11, 19-20)
mc32 6y ago
In my view from the ten minutes I watched he didn’t state anything any more off base than the WHO has over the time the pandemic has been spreading. There is uncertainty and we’re yet to understand it thoroughly. Given that, I think this is gross overreach by YT in establishing narrative. What happens if their management becomes a bunch of anti-vaxxers, do they get to set the tone?
_bxg1 6y ago
And on the other end of the spectrum we have people being indoctrinated into violent conspiracy groups like QAnon, or being prompted to set fire to cell towers, or bringing measles back from the dead, because of YouTube videos. There's a line to be drawn here - and it's a tricky line, to be sure - but "YouTube should be totally neutral and not pull anything" is not a viable answer.
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  Let me be contrary: who shut down millions of businesses and put millions out of work? It wasn't QAnon. It was the state -- and it looks like YouTube is aligned with the pro-shutdown folks who don't want their wisdom questioned. Now I'm a big believer in keeping things shut. I thing prudence is super-important. But QAnon's actions are mainly talk. The state's, however, are different.
  - benignslime 6y ago
    "Be skeptical of the actions of the state, regardless of the action"
  - agentdrtran 6y ago
    A Qanon guy brought a gun into a pizza place and one tried to mail bombs to politicians.
    - eganist 6y ago
      Don't forget the attempted Venezuelan coup.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    > QAnon's actions are mainly talk QAnon is an FBI-registered domestic terror organization: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-domestic-terrorism-threat-conspiracy-theory-866288/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-... They've been connected to multiple attempted acts of violence. They aren't just talk.
riku_iki 6y ago
> They don’t have in-house experts on these domains, they don’t have a magic epistemology machine that spits out the “facts”. What are the other options? Is there any good_or_not(url) API youtube service can call? They are forced to moderate content.
- inakarmacoma 6y ago
  Actually... https://health.google.com https://health.google.com
chvid 6y ago
I have been following unherd for a bit and while they are on the let's do as the Swedes side of things, this is wellreasoned long form interviews with established experts and opinion makers. I don't understand mechanism on why something like this gets censored. I think it is obvious that this sort of "overcensoring" will come back on youtube in a negative way; and possibly even hurt the case for lockdowns and careful reopening.
lordlic 6y ago
> I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not. YouTube has to make these decisions because there's no one else willing or able to do the job. If the government established a Department of Social Media to do the same work, HN would be losing its mind over government censorship. And if YouTube does nothing at all, it ends up hosting terrorist recruiting videos and instructional videos on how much bleach to drink to kill coronavirus. You might be uncomfortable with the role of big tech companies in moderating content but, until you can provide an alternative, your discomfort does not override the imperative to save human lives.
NotDaveLane 6y ago
Maybe the people working at YouTube still have a moral and ethical responsibility to minimize the spread of disinformation.
- RpFLCL 6y ago
  Unfortunately it isn't always cut and dry. As the GP pointed out, once upon a time the heliocentric model was "disinformation". In more modern times, suggesting that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was misrepresented would be "disinformation". Suggesting that we didn't need to invade Iraq to prevent another 9/11 would be "disinformation". Sometimes yesterday's "harmful disinformation" is simply today's "information". I think the ethical question you presented is multifaceted. On another axis, do the people who control the most prolific video platform also have a moral responsibility to ensure a free society has the tools to ask difficult questions?
iso947 6y ago
“on matters of geocentricity vs heliocentricity we will follow the expert opinion of Catholic Church” Does YouTube remove flat earth idiots?
inakarmacoma 6y ago
https://health.google/ https://health.google/

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?
- root_axis 6y ago
  Their monopoly is meaningless in the context of all the knowledge freely available within the entirety of the internet, not to mention all the knowledge freely available outside the internet in the form of books which still happen to be the definitive medium to learn about anything with any type of serious rigor.
mudil 6y ago
According to your philosophy, we should already have a competitor to Boeing cranking up new airplanes.
- belltaco 6y ago
  It's called Airbus.

root_axis 6y ago

> I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not This point is often repeated during discussions on these topics but I believe this is an inaccurate characterization. YouTube is not "in charge of deciding what is credible" in the fashion that kind of phrasing suggests; they are moderating the content on their platform with respect to their business process and company values, those decisions are not a reflection of credibility. YouTube is a corporate product and we should not encourage the narrative that this product is the zenith of knowledge even though there are knowledgeable people who put content on YouTube.

spiderfarmer 6y ago
A lot of people who blame Youtube for oppressing their right to disinform other people, would immediately oppress other people if they had the chance.
- JungleGymSam 6y ago
  Sounds so scary! I'm shivering with fear. Thank you, YouTube! I'm too stupid to think for myself.
AbrahamParangi 6y ago
I’ll reiterate a point I’ve made before: the ultimate question is whether YouTube (and other social media platforms) should be permitted both the power to control on their platform as well as the freedom from liability of a common carrier. They exist in a limbo where they have their cake and eat it too- which I think is ultimately untenable.
- Justsignedup 6y ago
  The problem we face is that social media is about echoing information, not validity, which is how misinformation spreads so rapidly, because it sounds like what people want to hear. There is no precedent in human history in such a thing. A private entity which controls so much public understanding and opinion. Making YouTube liable for content would go a long way in helping keep YT content honest, and solve the moderator problem. YT will either moderate or die. The reason YT could get so popular is because they neither have to moderate, nor fact check, but still get the benefits of being informational. This is true for ALL social media, unfortunately. How would one go about moderating the thousands of hours of content produced every hour in TikTok? Etc.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zumu 6y ago

The fact there is a global pandemic going on that requires the cooperation of virtually everyone is important context here. Meanwhile, YouTube does little moderation of zany philosophical, conspiratorial, or otherwise disruptive, unconventional content. The ideas of Galieo, Socrates, Jesus etc. fall into this category. That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis. I don't agree with censorship, but your analogy is off base.

javagram 6y ago
> That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis. I think the figures running the Inquisition and the counter-reformation at the time of Galileo might have disagreed. Remember the 30 Years War was also ongoing from 1618-1648 during the whole time, a Catholic-Protestant religious conflict that engulfed all of Europe and resulted in 8 million deaths. Bucking the authority of the Church/inquisition at that time was seen as a serious issue against social order in a way that’s hard for us to understand from a modern perspective. BTW, I strongly disagree with the this video, but really not sure if YouTube removing it is the right way to do this or will be effective in suppressing virus truthers.
- zumu 6y ago
  True, but Galileo's work was not a direct commentary on said crisis (30 Years War). On the other hand, this "professor" is presenting an analysis of an ongoing crisis and suggesting concrete actions on how it should be handled. > Bucking the authority of the Church/inquisition at that time was seen as a serious issue against social order in a way that’s hard for us to understand from a modern perspective. Exactly my point. You can criticize the powers and be and the social order today with impunity on YouTube.
xamuel 6y ago
>The ideas of Galieo, Socrates, Jesus etc. fall into this category. That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis. Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands before they eat." (...) Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, "Listen and understand. A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it. (...) For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him." (Matthew 15:1-2, 10-11, 19-20)

mc32 6y ago

In my view from the ten minutes I watched he didn’t state anything any more off base than the WHO has over the time the pandemic has been spreading. There is uncertainty and we’re yet to understand it thoroughly. Given that, I think this is gross overreach by YT in establishing narrative. What happens if their management becomes a bunch of anti-vaxxers, do they get to set the tone?

_bxg1 6y ago

And on the other end of the spectrum we have people being indoctrinated into violent conspiracy groups like QAnon, or being prompted to set fire to cell towers, or bringing measles back from the dead, because of YouTube videos. There's a line to be drawn here - and it's a tricky line, to be sure - but "YouTube should be totally neutral and not pull anything" is not a viable answer.

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Let me be contrary: who shut down millions of businesses and put millions out of work? It wasn't QAnon. It was the state -- and it looks like YouTube is aligned with the pro-shutdown folks who don't want their wisdom questioned. Now I'm a big believer in keeping things shut. I thing prudence is super-important. But QAnon's actions are mainly talk. The state's, however, are different.
- benignslime 6y ago
  "Be skeptical of the actions of the state, regardless of the action"
- agentdrtran 6y ago
  A Qanon guy brought a gun into a pizza place and one tried to mail bombs to politicians.
  - eganist 6y ago
    Don't forget the attempted Venezuelan coup.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  > QAnon's actions are mainly talk QAnon is an FBI-registered domestic terror organization: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-domestic-terrorism-threat-conspiracy-theory-866288/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-... They've been connected to multiple attempted acts of violence. They aren't just talk.

riku_iki 6y ago

> They don’t have in-house experts on these domains, they don’t have a magic epistemology machine that spits out the “facts”. What are the other options? Is there any good_or_not(url) API youtube service can call? They are forced to moderate content.

inakarmacoma 6y ago
Actually... https://health.google.com https://health.google.com

chvid 6y ago

I have been following unherd for a bit and while they are on the let's do as the Swedes side of things, this is wellreasoned long form interviews with established experts and opinion makers. I don't understand mechanism on why something like this gets censored. I think it is obvious that this sort of "overcensoring" will come back on youtube in a negative way; and possibly even hurt the case for lockdowns and careful reopening.

lordlic 6y ago

> I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not. YouTube has to make these decisions because there's no one else willing or able to do the job. If the government established a Department of Social Media to do the same work, HN would be losing its mind over government censorship. And if YouTube does nothing at all, it ends up hosting terrorist recruiting videos and instructional videos on how much bleach to drink to kill coronavirus. You might be uncomfortable with the role of big tech companies in moderating content but, until you can provide an alternative, your discomfort does not override the imperative to save human lives.

NotDaveLane 6y ago

Maybe the people working at YouTube still have a moral and ethical responsibility to minimize the spread of disinformation.

RpFLCL 6y ago
Unfortunately it isn't always cut and dry. As the GP pointed out, once upon a time the heliocentric model was "disinformation". In more modern times, suggesting that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was misrepresented would be "disinformation". Suggesting that we didn't need to invade Iraq to prevent another 9/11 would be "disinformation". Sometimes yesterday's "harmful disinformation" is simply today's "information". I think the ethical question you presented is multifaceted. On another axis, do the people who control the most prolific video platform also have a moral responsibility to ensure a free society has the tools to ask difficult questions?

iso947 6y ago

“on matters of geocentricity vs heliocentricity we will follow the expert opinion of Catholic Church” Does YouTube remove flat earth idiots?

inakarmacoma 6y ago

https://health.google/ https://health.google/