43 ms·

YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

• anonymousiam 6y ago
  This is the slippery slope of censorship on display for everyone to see. What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? I'm pretty sure they don't have any doctors doing this. The ban is a political act and not a scientific one.
  • optimiz3 6y ago
    > ban is a political act What is political about objective science?
    • anonymousiam 6y ago
      Much of the information being banned has been published by credible, knowledgeable doctors and scientists who are working "in the trenches". Epidemiologists who have specialized in this area are being censored because political bodies (such as the WHO) have released contrary information, but the WHO (and others) have contradicted themselves multiple times throughout the SARS-Cov-19 pandemic. To answer your question directly, it seems to me that objective science becomes political when an unpopular politician cites a scientific publication or opinion. Attacking the messenger then becomes important to those politically opposed, and the original scientific message gets lost in the political controversy.
      • ikiris 6y ago
        [citation needed]
        • anonymousiam 6y ago
          Enter this search on Google and see what you get: "Is hydroxychloroquine effective in treating COVID-19?" Why should there be such a controversy about this issue? It only became political when Trump mentioned it.
          • gruez 6y ago
            >Enter this search on Google and see what you get: "Is hydroxychloroquine effective in treating COVID-19?" what am I supposed to be looking at? is there supposed to be an info box that says "yes" or "no"?
            • anonymousiam 6y ago
              Sorry for not being clear. I am not the best communicator. What you should notice upon entering that search term are the wildly conflicting results. Google will present a "No" answer near the top, but if you scroll down through the thousands of results, you will see some saying "Yes", some saying "No", and some saying "We don't know". Google (and all of the other big social media giants) was quick to post a definitive answer, but is it the correct answer? The volume of uncertainty would seem to indicate that it is not.
              • bduerst 6y ago
                Pointing to search engine results being varied for a specific query is not a citation.
              • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
                You shouldn't make any conclusions based on skimming search results though. Ask critical questions like: - Who is answering the question? - Who paid for that answer? - What platform is it posted on, and where lie their loyalties? The problem with search results for questions like that is that you end up on a ton of trash media sites, none of which are neutral; they are all paid for, operated by or supported by parties with political goals and ambitions.
          • nomel 6y ago
            I did this a few days ago. You need to limit the date range to before he mentioned it to find anything suggesting positive results. I did find a recent story mentioning possible positive outcomes buried near the bottom of one story.
          • sixothree 6y ago
    • throwaway69123 6y ago
      objective science, got any examples?
      • anonymousiam 6y ago
        They have all been censored in favor of today's consensus opinion.
        • sintaxi 6y ago
          Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.
          • anonymousiam 6y ago
            Exactly! QED
    • cicero 6y ago
      He didn't say objective science is political, but banning is. Science promotes the free exchange of ideas with the hope that the truth will be established and falsehood will be disproved.
  • s3r3nity 6y ago
    Agree on this one - authoritative bodies can be wrong / misled as well, and shouldn't be the only arbiters of truth. Ex: The WHO made many mistakes during COVID, including faulty recommendations and (alleged) influence by a governing body to limit bad press. [1] (Before the ad hominem attacks come in, I'm obviously very pro vaccine...but against censorship and generally distrust authoritative bodies of most kinds.) [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/world-health-organization-blame-pandemic-coronavirus/609820/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/world-h...
    • Shish2k 6y ago
      > authoritative bodies can be wrong / misled as well, and shouldn't be the only arbiters of truth I agree, but with a very large caveat - the human brain is not good at probabilities, it basically only recognises “outcome A is guaranteed” and “outcomes A and B are equally likely”. So how much credit should we give to an authority who is correct 90% of the time? 90% isn’t great when it comes to life-or-death matters, so it’s dangerous to recommend “always trust them”. But recommending “don’t always trust them” results in people thinking that the authorites and the crackpots are 50/50 correct, which results in even more people dying :(
      • xupybd 6y ago
        Yes but this has been politicised so heavily even the truth is normally garnished with a partizan message. It's hard to believe YouTube will be even remotely competent when it comes to filtering fact from fiction in this case.
      • konjin 6y ago
        There's a difference between being wrong about "put a band aid on a cut" and "aids is transmitted by having sex with Puerto Ricans". Health authorities are good at the first, and very bad at the second.
      • raxxorrax 6y ago
        I think there is merit to the argument that if you cannot guarantee 100% correctness, that you cannot strip people of their ability to form their opinion themselves. And that requires access to different perspectives.
  • jimmydorry 6y ago
    It would be a shame if notable Democrats and any media house that hosts them, were deplatformed for their anti-vaccination views. I refer specifically to the people spreading fear and doubt about any vaccine produced under the Trump administration. Or... as you have said, this is just another political move, another rule to be selectively enforced when the undesirables are otherwise not flagrantly breaking any platform rules.
  • knaq 6y ago
    This is getting way out of hand, across all social media. The president's medical report got banned, probably because it was good news. It was dry, factual, scientific... and now banned as coronavirus misinformation. Evidently his health is disputed by our social media overlords. They must know more than the doctor. Today it was a ban on posting links to the stuff leaked off Hunter Biden's hard drive. It confirms that Joe was well-involved in the Ukraine corruption. There is also a horrifying email that says in part: "We had assurances the PRC money would come first and we would build on that. Right now I don't see that happening. If they want us in Beijing once a month and pitching this outside PRC we should be getting paid in advance just like every other team member thats getting a salary." It seems that every day something major gets banned. It's really distorting people's view of reality. Even private messages are not immune.
    • anonymousiam 6y ago
      Fully agree, and I'm not sure why you were modded down. I guess the answer is that the censorship of unpopular views is okay with most people. This could be an innocent consequence of our click-bait culture, or it could be something more sinister.
      • ojnabieoot 6y ago
        Speaking personally: I downvoted them because the thing about blocking Trump's medical report is just not true. FYI: "getting downvoted on HN because my comment is spreading false rumors" is not an example of censorship.
        • stickyricky 6y ago
          Nit: It's a collective act of censorship if downvotes lead the comment to be removed from public view.
          • anonymousiam 6y ago
            That is true, but now his post has been "Flagged" so it is officially censored.
  • Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    Something has to be done. Obvious bullshit is fooling huge chunks of the population and causing huge damage. We have always selected acceptable content and it has usually been a positive. Schools have always picked which info to teach and what to not and that's largely a positive thing.
    • throwaway69123 6y ago
      I will take short term damage over long term tyranny
      • ed25519FUUU 6y ago
        A Samuel Adams quote posted by Naval today on twitter I’ve been thinking about: > If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! Feeling hungry for change, what will our generation trade in exchange for our inheritance?
        • raverbashing 6y ago
          Personal opinion: Naval is one of the most insufferable personalities on twitter, it's just vain quotes and other empty statements with vague meanings
      • bleepblorp 6y ago
        Like the results of a numerical integration, the long term is the sum of all the short terms that came before it. Long term damage is the inevitable consequence of too many bad short term decisions. Poor short term leadership damages societies just as a poorly maintained codebase rots from accumulated technical debt.
    • xienze 6y ago
      > Obvious bullshit is fooling huge chunks of the population and causing huge damage. “Obvious” is debatable. Hardly anyone watching scientific content of any kind is an expert in the subject matter. What the public has always relied on is some sort of authority figure lending credibility to some idea or news story. For instance, saying masks don’t work is “obvious” bullshit. But remember back in March? Our glorious leaders were urging us not to buy masks because they don’t work, and besides, doctors need them. Even though they don’t work. And to have argued differently at the time was “misinformation.” Now we’re trusting Facebook, Twitter, and Google to be the authority from which all truth flows.
  • raz32dust 6y ago
    What is not a political act these days? If youtube bans spam content, that involves some subjectiveness. Would you say banning spam is political? How about if Youtube's algorithms downrank this kind of content instead of outright ban? Is that not political? Does every algorithm need government approval then? Also what incentive does YT have to be political?
  • threatofrain 6y ago
    If misinformation leading to loss of life can be traced back to YT, wouldn't YT be far more at risk for across-the-board negative response? Science and politics have a massive intersection in the arena of public communication; e.g., fracking, nuclear energy, climate change, vaccines... IMO, any nation which cannot establish a harmonious relationship with their own institutions of science is in a shaky spot.
    • brink 6y ago
      The whole point of freedom is that it's risky, but worth it. The first people who attack freedom always point to it's risk as a reason to remove it.
  • ojnabieoot 6y ago
    > The ban is a political act and not a scientific one. It is a public health act and a moral act, and therefore both scientific and political. These considerations don't take place in a vacuum of Free Speech Patriots versus Social Media Authoritarians. YouTube's decision has to be considered alongside the widespread consensus among doctors and public health officials that social media disinformation about COVID-19 has killed tens of thousands of people worldwide, in a pandemic that has killed over 1,000,000 people in less than a year. And let's be absolutely clear: the reason why YouTube's actions are so politically controversial is that unscrupulous politicians like Trump and Bolsorano have deliberately politicized misinformation about COVID-19. It is not YouTube's fault that "should we listen to scientists about COVID-19?" has become a partisan issue. Also: "Section 230" concerns are irrelevant here (and irrelevant in most cases of social media "censorship"). Section 230 specifically allows content providers a great deal of latitude in blocking material they deem "objectionable," including constitutionally-protected speech. YouTube is well within their rights to make reasonable determinations about what constitutes COVID-19 misinformation, and to ban such materials. YouTube blocks pornography with nary a peep from free speech activists. This is because a "free speech" argument is transparently absurd: YouTube is a business and not the government, and is allowed to regulate the data it keeps on its servers for business reasons. Yet the idea that YouTube might regulate for reasons of ethics or public health in the middle of the worst pandemic in 100 years is apparently the slippery slope of censorship.
  • AgentME 6y ago
    How many TV stations have allowed themselves to run shows with covid vaccine misinformation? Is it censorship that they mostly don't?
  • gymknight 6y ago
    > What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? According to the article youtube's policy team meets with the WHO weekly to discuss potentially problematic videos.
    • ed25519FUUU 6y ago
      So would WHO have recommended censor of videos in mid January from people claiming C19 could be spread human-to-human? https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=20 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=20
      • hef19898 6y ago
        Don't jump to conclusions, please. Because you seem to assume the WHO didn't change their minds based in research but on public opinion. And that they would "censor" any other information. No proof for either. Also, only governments can censor. Youtube is a private entity, so whatever they do cannot be censorship yo begin with.
        • j8hn 6y ago
          But did WHO make the original claim based on sound evidence or trying to appease a certain government? Taiwan disagreed with that assessment early on.
        • sanedigital 6y ago
          Wikipedia disagrees with your definition of Censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies."
          • hef19898 6y ago
            Censorship =|= free speech. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the state, what Youtube is doing is more resembling a news paper refusing to pick publish certain readers letters. Freedom of speech is not supposed to guarantee you the maximum possible reach or to protect you from the consequences of ehat you said, social and professional.
  • narshian 6y ago
    Um no, it’s a public welfare act.
  • cam_l 6y ago
    Just like eating 'fads' lollies as a kid is not a slippery slope to drug addiction. Banning clear misinformation* is not a slippery slope to censorship. Just like drug addiction, each step along the path to censorship is a clear decisive act. I am way more concerned about the fast train to banning encryption than the baby step of banning misinformation. And by the way, let's also not lose sight of the fact that presenting misinformation is a bastard political act itself. Fuck those people. Edit: *on a non government platform
    • ipiz0618 6y ago
      This is assuming that the YouTube management (or the software behind) is authoritative of what information is correct. In reality, YouTube has not just once banned stuff "by mistake" and will continue to do so.
      • cam_l 6y ago
        I make no such assumption. I merely suggest that the line between mistake and "mistake" is a deliberate step. It is a choice the management decided to take and were rightly ashamed of. Making an argument for 'misinformation cesspit' over 'moderation' is just never going to be an argument you can win. Not with the business, and not with the public. This is one of those 'perfect is the enemy of good' things. If you don't give them a good business option to take, you will get handed the easy one (and it sure as shit is not going to be perfect).
      • imhoguy 6y ago
        And it is not even management who makes the final censoring decisions. Does being content moderator require degree in any related area, or is it just group of trained low wage hires to review user or AI flagged content and decide on ban/leave? Honestly I would like to try out such job shaddowing myself.
      • tshaddox 6y ago
        If you oppose all human processes in which it is possible to make a mistake, then you oppose all human processes.
    • 6y ago
  • anigbrowl 6y ago
    Zzzz. Yeah that's a problem, but come back with a proposal about how to deal with the existing misinformation and bad faith problem.
    • brigandish 6y ago
      More freedom of speech is the answer to misinformation because then it can be challenged. Censorship allows convenient mistruths to spread unchallenged.
      • ed25519FUUU 6y ago
        That’s what it does at its best. At its worst it’s a tool to allow oppressive governments to conceal the truth and further their grip on power.
        • brigandish 6y ago
          I'd say there was a stronger relationship between governments that censor and those that oppress. Which oppressive governments are using free speech to conceal the truth?
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • wyattpeak 6y ago
        > More freedom of speech is the answer to misinformation because then it can be challenged Do we have any evidence that it's true? Anecdotally, it seems that the more the internet has expanded our ability to communicate, the more widespread misinformation has gotten. I see the moral and anti-authoritarian arguments against censorship, but only in the context of accepting the costs. This "have your cake and eat it" argument feels hollow.
        • remarkEon 6y ago
          >Anecdotally, it seems that the more the internet has expanded our ability to communicate, the more widespread misinformation has gotten. I don't think this is the right conclusion. After thinking about it more, it's not like the internet is patient zero for conspiracies and misinformation. It's just that the internet has exposed to the rest of us how common it is for people to hold such beliefs.
  • pzmTWLwfwJ 6y ago
    Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If these platforms don't do anything then everyone talks about how misinformation is rampant on these platforms, how dangerous it is and that nothings being done about it. If they do, then everyone's worried about censorship or blamed to be politically motivated. There could be simple legislation that defines what is and what isn't to be censored, then these platforms can adhere to that and check a compliance box and leave it at that. Perhaps a better response would be, what do you think these platforms should do, really? Maybe we can crowdsource a good idea. And, while at it, also think how to thread the needle of keeping these platforms as less scammy etc. as possible, so that the people won't stop using the platforms.
    • tshaddox 6y ago
      I don’t think it’s this simple, because the “don’t do anything” case is actually “use engagement-maximizing algorithms to actively spread misinformation as fast as possible.”
    • akiselev 6y ago
      > And, while at it, also think how to thread the needle of keeping these platforms as less scammy etc. as possible, so that the people won't stop using the platforms. Why should anyone care about these platforms' engagement metrics? What about these platforms necessitates their survival? The assumption that Youtube is an unalloyed good for the world is a very controversial one.
      • darawk 6y ago
        People like them. They wouldn't survive if they didn't.
        • akiselev 6y ago
          Like cancer?
          • darawk 6y ago
  • bmarquez 6y ago
    > What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? The cheapest content moderators possible, of course. Outsourced through contract agencies in foreign countries to keep costs down. I doubt anybody with a medical degree would take the job. Here's an article about the life of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter content moderators in Manila: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/25/social-media-companies-are-outsourcing-their-dirty-work-philippines-generation-workers-is-paying-price/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/25/social-... "At the end of a shift, my mind is so exhausted that I can’t even think,” said a Twitter moderator in Manila. He said he occasionally dreamed about being the victim of a suicide bombing or a car accident, his brain recycling images that he reviewed during his shift. “To do this job, you have to be a strong person and know yourself very well." The moderators worked for Facebook, Facebook-owned Instagram, Google-owned YouTube, Twitter and the Twitter-owned video-streaming platform Periscope, as well as other such apps, all through intermediaries such as Accenture and Cognizant.
  • jhanschoo 6y ago
    Why do you say that it's a slippery slope as opposed to, say, a (continuously evolving) policy with forces pulling in both directions?
  • ReptileMan 6y ago
    And well - the way washing hands after autopsies and before surgery to prevent infection needed 30 years to be accepted by the community (1850-1880 I think) - even panels of certified physicians could be wrong
  • didibus 6y ago
    I think I disagree with that statement. Censorship would prevent the information from being accessible, make it illegal, come with repercussions for those who publish it, or other such things. Platforms like YouTube, Google Search, Twitter, Facebook and all have a problem of amplification through algorithms that don't promote well proven, high quality, trusted content. You could almost see these platforms themselves as a kind of censorship through obscuring and creating noise around quality information. I think because of the way content is amplified on such platforms, that's why they need policies like this, to limit the possible damage and liability they might face if they'd promote something that caused a lot of damages. This is very different from someone choosing to host their own content which is equally accessible to all other content. But as soon as you rank content, as soon as you have an algorithm pick and choose content to shown you, in what order to show it to you and all that, you actually have a propaganda problem, because you become a propaganda machine, and that's really what these platforms have become.
    • saurik 6y ago
      ...so you are saying that Google should stop recommending such videos, but has no reason to ban them entirely from being posted, right?
      • didibus 6y ago
        Yes, if they didn't recommend the video, if it could only be found through search, there wouldn't be any issue with it. Though even with search, if the search algorithms are biased, and prioritize things in a way that could be argued to be recommendation, like personalized results based on what it thinks you'll like for the given keywords, you could say that's also a problem, which is why I mentioned Google Search. To put it another way, you'd expect that the easiest content to find and discover, and thus be shown and recommended would also be the most commonly held opinion and current scientific consensus. But you'd also want representation for less commonly held opinions and scientific hypothesis and claims. Just that, if 1 scientist is pushing some wildly different idea, and 99 others are pushing the same idea, you'd expect that the idea pushed by 99 scientist would be the easiest to come around and that it be clear that it is weighted to 99%, while the other would be a little harder to come around and it be clear that it's weighted to 1%. The issue is those platforms fail heavily to represent things proportionally as such. Often, the outlying wild claim will be recommended more heavily, and be promoted over others. Even without algorithms, the people pushing wild claims generally employ amplification tactics by spamming and posting multiple times over and over, etc. to falsely boost their representation. So that's the problem I see here. Banning the more problematic instances of this is their poor solution to keep their platforms operating in a way that doesn't offer proper representation (because it makes more money), but avoid the extreme cases that could put them in hot water.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • raverbashing 6y ago
    Yes, please, I'm all in favour of more political statements Please don't wear a mask. Please don't take vaccines. Please congregate in closed spaces for long periods of time Do your part to achieve heard immunity. Just don't say they might suffer the consequences of their actions, the deniers don't like it
  • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Misinformation is also a slippery slope though; you have to say "enough is enough" at one point because else you reach a point of no return. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance (iirc that was linked to on here a while ago, I may misremember)
    • watt 6y ago
      This "paradox" is resolved by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie - self-defending democracy. Before this idea, a democracy would allow itself to be subverted by allowing a dictator to be democratically elected, and consequences be damned. Not a good idea as we find out. By extension, a system that wants the idea of free speech to stay viable needs to protect itself from ideas that bring harm to it. Maybe it can be argued that from mathematical sense there is some kind of paradox (a set of all sets that are not blah blah), but this is no contradiction for us humans. There is no mathematical beauty in submitting to a wave of harmful, malicious misinformation.
• michaelterryio 6y ago
  We’ve been searching for a rigorous way to determine scientific consensus on claims but I don’t think we realized the answer was YouTube’s management.
  • garbagetime 6y ago
    Science doesn't work by consensus, anyway.
    • gruez 6y ago
      It doesn't, but practically speaking for the average joe, what better option is there?
      • tux1968 6y ago
        For policy makers to earn the respect and attention of the average Joe, to impart important and scientifically sound information. If they're so bad at the job that they can't refute the ideas of Covid flat-earthers, maybe nobody should be listening to what they have to say anyway. The real issue is that the media and many authorities have squandered their trust and political capital. And now instead of building that up they want to substitute authoritarianism and censorship.
        • drcross 6y ago
          >they can't refute the ideas of Covid flat-earthers What is a covid flat-earther? If you are trying to lump flat earthers in with a group of people who are lockdown sceptics you're doing yourself a disservice.
      • googthrowaway42 6y ago
        Trusting their intuition.
      • im3w1l 6y ago
        I think the best option is to go to the same doctor for many years, and build a relationship of trust, and then ask them for their opinion.
• arminiusreturns 6y ago
  You know, I'm sort of thankful for the increase in private/public company censorship, because they are doing it so poorly and with such bad timing that I think it's starting to create a kickback effect where more people are waking up to the issues... so I am hoping it causes a pendulum swing back the other direction. (though that's hope, I'm not sure how likely it is). It's interesting to see how servile so many hn'ers are about censorship though.
  • hitchhiker999 6y ago
    Fingers crossed.
• BurnFroggyBurn 6y ago
  Sometimes I have to wonder if these tech giants are actually run by far right accelerationists. Ramming these narratives down people's throats is a surefire way to create suspicion and hostility in the mind of any reasonable man who fears the censor more than any inconvenient truth. Having every form of media, government department, NGO, celebrity, etc parroting the day's narrative while covertly (or even overtly) shutting down the opposition is doing more harm to their message than they could imagine. I've seen White nationalists celebrating BLM more than anyone this year because it has created more racists in 6 months than they could have achieved in 10 years. The LGBTQI movement creates open homophobes at a rate that far-right propaganda could only dream of. Already, where I live (Victoria, Aus), exhaustion of the pandemic and contempt for the government's overzealous and opportunistic authoritarian measures are very popular. I have had the pleasant experience recently of walking into a store and having an employee tell me I am free to remove my mask - like every other customer and employee in there. Personally, they can deliver this vaccine to my corpse.
• nur0n 6y ago
  This primary source provides better details on YouTube's policy: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en. It includes concrete examples of content that is banned under this policy.
  • gundmc 6y ago
    These seem totally reasonable given the circumstances. I wish people would read these specific examples instead of jumping immediately to accusations of widespread censorship and accusing Youtube of being arbiters of disputed science.
    • DenisM 6y ago
      >Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO's guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19 How about this? Can reasonable people disagree about distancing and isolation measures?
• brink 6y ago
  It's only a matter of time until certain unpopular religious expressions begin to be censored outright. For those who aren't concerned about censorship; it must be nice to think that your views will never be controversial.
  • abellerose 6y ago
    Nothing ever good has come from religion. So not a very good example you have there.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Some of my views will be controversial, and that's absolutely fine - I am quite happy that my views and opinions won't put me in jail, thanks to our constitution. That said, with this freedom comes also the freedom of websites like youtube, HN, etc to NOT offer me a platform, if my views are opposed to said platform's morals. There are plenty of alternative platforms that won't deplatform this stuff. Those platforms are free to band whatever they want as well. Or do you think the conservative platforms should allow anything to be posted as well?
• jMyles 6y ago
  > YouTube doesn't allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19 So all videos must refer to an IFR of > 3%?
  • logicchains 6y ago
    WHO has now accepted https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf for publication, which concludes: "Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower. "
    • jMyles 6y ago
      That's the point though: if a video had, in the intervening time, asserted this more accurate IFR, it'd be against the letter-of-the-law per these rules. The WHO hasn't been the infallible source of truth that Google is trying to portray - nobody has.
• psudmant 6y ago
  The "slippery slope" is always a lazy argument w. little substance. It's easy to get induction wrong even in simple math problems let alone trying to pigeonhole humanity into tidy formula. The idea that the market will regulate itself because (... because what?) is also lazy. The bottom line is it really makes a great deal of sense to say,"hey, don't drink bleach," "hey, no Nazis on this platform please!", "hey, it's highly unlikely Hillary Clinton is a pedophile" - This is serious - this is real life and in good conscience we should all be supportive of this kind of "censorship" for the good of humanity.
  • maaand 6y ago
    You are essentially arguing, your preferred side should be allowed to perpetuate hoaxes, not your opponents.
    • xmprt 6y ago
      People always say there's a right and a wrong or that there are two equally valid sides to an argument but that's just plain wrong. The Earth isn't flat, the government isn't run by lizard people, and masks are effective at curbing spread of a airborne disease. You make it sound like both sides are perpetuating hoaxes but YouTube is only censoring the hoaxes from one side.
      • raxxorrax 6y ago
        There are always different perspective on everything. You can determine the value of each for yourself and try to convince others of its merits. That is your freedom and your limit. > You make it sound like both sides are perpetuating hoaxes Which sides? Which hoaxes?
  • mlang23 6y ago
    But how unlikely is it really, given the history of her husband?
  • j0ba 6y ago
    The only thing that's lazy is imagining that all situations have obvious choices of what's right and wrong, and that people who don't agree with you are crazy, stupid, or bad people. What's much more likely is that you are highly ignorant to all the facts. Your "good conscience" would lead humanity into a hellish reality. Or was nazi germany an impossible "slippery slope"?
• bosswipe 6y ago
  It is important to remember in these censorship discussions that it has never in human history been so easy and cheap to create content seen by millions of people than it is right now. Before the web if you wanted to spread medical misinformation widely you probably needed millions of dollars to promote and distribute your ideas yourself. In that sense you were much more censored in the past than you are today even if all the social media companies ban you.
  • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Yes and no; there were plenty of quacks out there back when, but they could not reach as many people as quickly as today.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • hitchhiker999 6y ago
    It's also important to remember that we've never had such a powerful, established and fully centralized media. The tech and the reach they have would give any dictator a chubby. Power corrupts.
• mlang23 6y ago
  Aha. Very trustworthy. 70% of the ads I see on youtube are borderline scammy. Shady investment thingies, sometimes outright scam. But YouTube is filtering bad content now, aha. Double standard at its best. Puritanism I guess. Maybe it is time to boycott this nonsense.
• deadalus 6y ago
  Alternative Video Sites : https://lbry.tv/ https://lbry.tv/ https://www.dailymotion.com/ https://www.dailymotion.com/ https://www.bitchute.com/ https://www.bitchute.com/ https://dlive.tv/ https://dlive.tv/ https://bittube.tv/ https://bittube.tv/
  • sergiotapia 6y ago
    lbry is a great site, i still don't quite understand where the videos are hosted and served from though...
  • josteink 6y ago
    If you want to fight centralized censorship, there's really one thing missing on your list: https://joinpeertube.org/ https://joinpeertube.org/
• tonyztan 6y ago
  > "The video platform said it would now ban any content with claims about COVID-19 vaccines that contradict consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization." The local health authorities (in the US) and the WHO also told us in February and March that masks were useless for normal people. Even though people in Asian countries were broadly wearing masks based on prior experience from SARS. It turns out that the US public health authorities and the WHO were both wrong.
  • tzs 6y ago
    Is your argument that because US public health authorities and WHO might occasionally be wrong, we therefore need to make sure we also get the opinions of people who are almost always wrong?
• ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  Yay, this is great, and should be used for everything! /s If we used this for medical advice in my country, this would make it very funny... at the start of the epidemic, our government "experts" said: - "healthy people don't need masks" ...and youtube would censor all the "fearmongering paranoics" advocating for mask use. Then on some random spring day, our government makes a new rule: - "you need a mask and gloves to enter any closed public space (stores,...)" (yes, literally overnight) And youtube would censor everybody saying that masks don't help healthy people.
  • hanselot 6y ago
    Waiting for the shills to downvote you. This is exactly how every situation will go. Welcome to 1984.
  • pzmTWLwfwJ 6y ago
    Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.
    • ajsnigrutin 6y ago
      But do you censor the people saying there is a better decision? And do you then censor the people that advocated for the former "better decision" at the time when it was 'current'.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • Shingbogle 6y ago
        But they're not banning random unknown sciences. They're banning conspiracies like tracking chips in vaccines or that the vaccine will kill people. That's not untested science like masks.
    • 0xy 6y ago
      Dr Fauci publicly claimed masks were not effective as a means of protecting the supply of masks to healthcare workers, he knew his claims were false at the time he made them. So no, it wasn't "science", it was deliberately misleading public statements.
• tasogare 6y ago
  I predict next move will be YouTube censoring video addressing some political topics, such as leaks.
• tb303 6y ago
  Banning misinformation: Great! Except: Youtube, the company that can't even be trusted to keep the scariest shit possible off Youtube Kids repeatedly to the point where I won't even let my kids watch it anymore, being in charge of filtering and categorizing videos? Nope.
• owlbynight 6y ago
  I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free speech alone. The idea is that we are supposed to be equally free to say whatever we want, regardless of our status or wealth. This has been corrupted. The ability for one person to amplify their voice or ideas via hundreds or thousands of bots, paid assholes, and gullible people who lack the capacity for critical thought is a problem. It's a big problem. Truth, facts, and hoping that people can apply logic to find their way to them isn't enough anymore and the people exploiting this advantage are getting better at it. I agree that what YouTube is doing here is a slippery slope and it's scary. However, I personally think that this is now a war for democracy, and things are going to need to be sacrificed. I do not like the idea that hard, easily proven facts can be overwhelmed by voluminous bullshit. If this is allowed to continue, our country is going to die. Banning obvious bullshit, albeit akin to censorship, is NARCAN. The underlying problem exists and is dangerous, but this will keep us going long enough to hopefully find a more suitable solution. I hate this.
  • ENOTTY 6y ago
    I agree with you on the harms that you have identified (overwhelming bullshit). I think it’s worth thinking about this problem by comparing and contrasting social media to traditional public spaces (like a soapbox in a town square). By comparing these two kinds of public spaces (ignoring for now the fact that social media is privately owned), one can start to identify the mechanisms in social media platforms that are enabling overwhelming bullshit and work to mitigate, modify, or eliminate those mechanisms. For what it’s worth, my opinion is that the amplification and discovery mechanisms in any media platform (from print to TV/radio to social media) play a key role in the spreading of bullshit. For that reason, I like twitter’s moves to introduce friction into retweeting. Additionally I support efforts of the social media companies to defeat bot farms.
  • spuz 6y ago
    I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on the UK and German models of "free speech" where no one has an absolute right to say what they want - certain subjects such as Holocaust denial or promotion of terrorism are banned. You could argue that we have been on a slippery slope for a long time but you could equally argue the slippery slope is a fallacy. I think it's important to think about what the actual purpose is of the rights that we value. The right to free speech is simply a shortcut to a more fundamental right to allow people to live freely without undue influence from others. It may be that the absolute right to free speech might not be the best way to achieve that.
• alexandr1us 6y ago
  So happy to see that most HN users aren't pro censorship CCP bullshit. Thank you for your existence you are good people
  • thinkingemote 6y ago
    Given the time right now, silicon valley hasn't woken up yet. It's currently mostly Europeans here who have a deeper connection to authoritarian history. Once the Americans get here, expect to see more support or at the very least the tired "actually this is a company therefore it's not censorship"
    • ativzzz 6y ago
      People don't do a good job of solving problems until it happens to them. Give us until after WW3 and then we'll be onboard.
• DanielBMarkham 6y ago
  BigTech has created something that's never existed before. Perhaps the best phrase is it is an "Epistemological Monopoly" If you run a newspaper, you publish lots of letters from nuts and cranks. You run stories on some of the things they do. People love hearing about other colorful people in their community (as long as they're peaceful, of course) When you run news stories, the general idea is that you have an editorial staff which is either balanced politically and temperamentally or is able to fake being so, the goal being to cut off and prevent any appearance of the publication accidentally slanting news when there's a much better and generally-accepted way of telling it. If it's passionate, stick that shit in the editorial section where it belongs. But there's no longer that distinction between news, quirky folks, and slice-of-life stories. In fact, the more that it's all muddled up, the more eyeballs you can reach. It's even become it's own anti-joke. I doubt many of the flat-earthers are actually serious, but it's a way to be wacky that the internet overlords overlook. And there lies the rub. If you control the gateway to information for billions of people, you effectively control where they go online. And since you control where they go online, you control what they know. These things logically follow one another. If they didn't, so many billions of dollars wouldn't be invested in internet advertising every week. We control what you know and when you know it. Driving through town? Hey, did you know there's a great pizza restaurant a block away? Computers are our brain, and internet companies are making huge bank on knowing stuff for us and telling us what would be fun to do. So if they don't like an idea, think it's dangerous, not only does it leave their platform, it ceases to exist for most people. In the physical world it may exist, but in the minds of the world it does not. That is immensely fucked up. The only thing worse would be subtle algorithms that do the same thing but are black boxes and difficult to prove exist or how they work. At least in this instance we're all having an honest conversation about it. I could make a long, long list of information everybody knew was dangerous that we would have happily shut down if we could: germ theory, heliocentric solar system, bacteria causing ulcers, and so on. I could make an equally-long list of information everybody knew was true and good for folks that we later abandoned: phrenology, Social Darwinism, Eugenics, homosexuality being deviance, etc. Hell, just look at how many times everybody that's serious have flipped around on issues during the pandemic. That's how it's supposed to work. At one point, we had ER physicians secretly going behind the backs of their hospitals to share information. This was both breaking their contracts and could have caused great harm to themselves, their patients, and the institutions they worked for. Now these problems are solved. Ideas contrary to leading opinions just cease to exist, and ideas supported by leading opinion, mixed with a lot of heavy-handed emotion and hyperbole, get stuck at the top of your feed. We don't fight you over wrongthink anymore. We don't stick you in the editorial section or write articles praising you for your creativity even if most of us disagree. You and your ideas just cease to exist as meaningful concepts; no mentioning, no chatting, no links, sometimes even no association with people who feel that way. We have certainly done a great job of fixing that pesky "How do we keep the most people using our service" problem. Congrats guys.
• dandare 6y ago
  Now think about all the conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be truth. MK ULTRA, Dark Alliance, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, COINTELPRO, PRISM, you name it. Would these be banned ("fact checked") from YouTube, Facebook or Twitter under these new rules? On the other hand, there is a clear evidence that authoritarian regimes (Russia) are weaponizing social media, using troll farms, puppet accounts and fake news, to disrupt democracies by sowing discord, uncertainty and doubt and radicalise any and all opinion spectrums. I would be surprised if the Russian trolls did not actively work to promote and decry Covid conspiracies at the same time. What is the correct solution here, that I don't know. No approach is flawless and there will always be collateral damage.
  • CyanBird 6y ago
    > there is a clear evidence that authoritarian regimes United States, say it with me, United States My country suffered a literal coup as a consequence of US meddling in our internal affairs and hijacking our media, newspapers, radio, against the national interest and democratic values of the nation spreading literal fake news I'll let you guess which country I am talking about, because heaven knows there's not only one You reap what you sow
    • fareesh 6y ago
      Sure nobody denies this but "you deserve it therefore stop complaining" is not really an argument, more like shutting down the point entirely.
    • fareesh 6y ago
      Sure nobody denies this but "you deserve it therefore stop complaining" is not really an argument, more like shutting down the point entirely. I agree with you that the sanctimonious outrage over the attempted, but laughable election interference is quite tone deaf.
    • rv-de 6y ago
      > United States, say it with me, United States Murrica ... Mur-ri-ca ... MURRICA!
• CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Absolutely terrible terrible idea. Deeply complex issues, like a global pandemic caused by a new virus which there is little understanding of require liberal treatment of new ideas, and a free flow of information, to enable society to collectively tackle them. People having the liberty to publish information that may be wrong is how information that may be right has a chance to get exposure. We do not know, before dissemination and public review, what is and isn't correct information. The process of critiquing a flawed analysis, or critiquing a flawed criticism of a correct analysis, is also extremely valuable.
• erfgh 6y ago
  It's their platform, they can take down whatever they want. If you don't like it, make your own platform.
• zxcvbn4038 6y ago
  I am betting that all of the recent censorship by Google, Facebook, and Twitter is a thin attempt to ward off the anti-trust actions that the US wants to impose on the big tech companies. There is false information out there - that is nothing new - but we're in the territory where we are censoring opinions, viewpoints, and non-predominant theory. Is light a particle or wave? Ban everyone who believes X, they are fools and they shouldn't be allowed to infect others with their heresy.
  • thinkingemote 6y ago
    Agreed it's a move to stop the threatened anti monopoly actions
• hannofcart 6y ago
  It's going to be interesting to see how YouTube polices information from Govt sources that are arguably lacking in scientific rigour. For eg. India has a whole ministry devoted to 'alternative' medicine called AYUSH (which is an acronym for Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathy) which puts out videos like this: https://youtu.be/hBxXOYk3bVw https://youtu.be/hBxXOYk3bVw
• torginus 6y ago
  While I under what YouTube is trying to do, even if it raise issue with free speech, I feel the bigger issue is how they plan to determine if a video is in line with their policies. Due to the sheer volume of videos YouTube needs to handle, this inevitably will end up as some sort of ML/ Natural Language Processing algorithm. Needless to say, the problem of determining whether a contents of avideo is inline with currently established scientific knowledge, is WAY beyond the ability of the current AI. In practice it seems, that YouTube struggles with basic stuff, like flagging an anti-mask debunking video that contains a part of the video its debunking. I fear that the in practice, this will mean that if your video contains the 'C-word' in any context, it has a good chance of being deleted, and an even better chance of being demonetized.
• aaron695 6y ago
  "that contradict consensus from local health authorities" Witchcraft ok in Africa but not USA? Prayer ok in USA? Are they blocked at country level? How does this work? Most countries are directly contradicting WHO, lucky YouTube knows best and can decide for us.
• ricardo81 6y ago
  No comment on the free speech / censor aspect. Google has been taking an aggressive approach to Covid content since the start of the epidemic. I tried searching for previous articles regarding commentary on it about it on Google but they're now quite hard to find. We had a news aggregator kicked out of Google Play because it "promoted misinformation" but it was simply the same headlines (and sources) Google News uses! It has since been reinstated. I'd seen other mentions of apps being removed for the same reasons, which I assume was done in an automated fashion. There's also been commentary on the same kind of thing happening on YouTube for months for the general topic of Covid-19
• gnicholas 6y ago
  > contradict consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization. That implies that local health authorities are in consensus with the WHO. What happens if local authorities disagree with the WHO? Can either viewpoint then be blocked?
• nathias 6y ago
  People have stopped recognizing evil just because it suits their current myopic political agendas. Talk about lacking the power of critical thought, the problem for democracies are not the fringe loonies that believe in whatever the idiotic theory of the week is, but the majority that trades freedoms for momentary comfort. The argument for censorship always goes "I'm not really for censorship, but now we really have to thought police people who disagree with me, who am smart and correct, or the world will end" and it is invalid, evil and stupid in any context.
• rurban 6y ago
  Oh no, so most big media channels need to be closed down. This will be a slaughterfest :) I rarely find a news channel with accurate COVID-19 information. The UK Telegraph being one of the rare good cases. * Most e.g. present the latest positve PCR test numbers per day as "confirmed new infections", whilst they are not "new" and not "infections". They are just "confirmed positives". They are not "new", because the statistics don't give away if they are old or new, they don't store old PCR or antibody tests results. And they are certainly not "infections" just "positives", as old infections and therefore immune people will test positive with PCR. Given the 7 months timeframe and the immense high dark figure of asymptotic cases, and the upcoming cold season with many people getting suddenly symptomatic (getting the common cold) and therefore getting tested finally, the real infection rate could be 20% less than the reported one. Those people did not get tested before, will be tested now, will be positive but not infected. * Previously they reported for months the mortality rate as CFR, not IFR. The CFR is only relevant for healthcare providers ("how many people die in hospitals"), but not for policies ("how many people die after being infected"). The CFR just looked much better being 10-30x higher (citing Ionnadis latest stats here), so policies looked much better. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13423 https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13423 * They continue to mixup HCQ prevention with treatment, for pure political gain. And many more such lies and inaccuracies, mostly by intent, not by mistake. But not even news and politics are guilty, even scientific research: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.249847v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.249847v1.... Getting rid of all the misinformation would be a godsend, but we certainly don't need even more censorship, as already done under the conspiracy label.
• levosmetalo 6y ago
  And who is to decide what is information and what is misinformation? Google? US government? Sergej? Google Shareholders? Youtube users by voting? Pope? Churches? Some poor employee tasked of tagging content? AI algorithm? A man pretending to be an AI? As much as I hate misinformation, I hate censorship even more because it's easy to misuse. None should have a power to decide on one and only ultimate source of truth.
• Smithalicious 6y ago
  Never have I hated the graying out of downvoted comments as much as now.
• fareesh 6y ago
  It says "claims that contradict consensus" and then gives the example of content saying the that COVID19 vaccines will cause death or infertility - is there a consensus that a vaccine will be 100% non-fatal and not have infertility as a side-effect? I have not heard of this. I understand the obvious point that there are people screaming at the camera saying it's part of the globalist trans-dimensional vampire plot to reduce the world population, led by the regular cast of rich characters - but what's wrong with saying that? Too many people believe it? In my country people perform idol worship, why isn't that banned? Poor people donate their paltry savings to temples, mosques, churches, etc. whose corrupt trustees often enrich themselves. It's not harmless. I also understand that to successfully beat COVID-19 we need everyone to be on board - but has anyone gamed out what happens when you censor the people who have these views? Do you think it becomes easier to convince them to vaccinate or wear a mask? I am not impressed with the competence of the decision makers at YouTube.
• Udo 6y ago
  It's a patch a best, and I wager many people here see the side effects already on the horizon: faulty algorithms tagging actual information as misinformation, news organizations continuing to skid by while spewing misleading claims, videos and channels deleted without recourse. All of this is painful. Youtube's ineptitude specifically has been painful to content creators in the past. Censorship of a "public" forum is always immensely painful, and heavy handed attempts by Mega Corporations at controlling public discourse always feel dystopian. The most painful aspect of it all is that I have come to personally agree with these measures, purely as an immediate firefighting response. But this is not a solution. As a society, our mental immune system is weak against disinformation and even the most obvious unscientific propaganda. These traits are even welcomed by the powerful in other contexts, that's why it's such a big deal that the people who started those fires are so closely related to those putting them out right now.
• richardARPANET 6y ago
  This is why we're building https://project49476.com/ https://project49476.com/
• thoughtstheseus 6y ago
  Repeal Section 230. Telling people how to treat an emerging medical condition is not moderation it’s publishing.
• rjkennedy98 6y ago
  The problem with this is that it's only selectively applied. What happens when Pharma companies get caught lying in about effects of drugs? Are they going to be de-platformed? No, because they pay for ads and so they can spread lies all day. Look at Study 329 by GSK which said that Paxil was effective in children (when in fact the data showed that it doesn't work and causes suicidal behavior in children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_329 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_329 ). That published study was a lie and was published and used to put millions of children on drugs. Proven actual harm done to innocent kids. Yet, GSK and other Pharma companies (which have all been caught doing the same thing) are still allowed to buy ads, to put things on TV, use social media (by the way often with fake grass roots organizations - Astroturfing - which also presumably is against social media policy). I have no problem with the concept of it, but let's be real, this is not done in a fair way. This is done for specific political reasons. Look what is going on with Dr. Mercola as a real life case study of this.
• mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Again, a simple solution is to slow the spread of information by tying it to a geographic radius of influence. Most trolls should have an audience of 1, it should take a year of positive community behavior to ever have a video shown to over 50 people. That will dramatically affect revenue, but it will vastly improve quality.
• steenreem 6y ago
  Isn't YouTube banning certain content exactly what free speech is about? YouTube, a corporate entity with its own goals and beliefs, exercises its right to say what it thinks is the truth. It's similar to most newspapers: they're not entirely objective. If content publishers want to post Corona related information that YouTube thinks is false, they'll just have to find/create another platform for it.
• jonstewart 6y ago
  A private party setting standards for acceptable content is NOT censorship. It’s their right, and it’s also a good idea. Anything other than that WOULD be censorship.
• Bdgb5G 6y ago
  I've been thinking about that a lot recently. Here's an idea - instead of censoring the false data, we could invest in educating people, developing critical thinking. Sure, that's more difficult than banhammering posts in social media, but it's more useful in the long-term.
• cm2187 6y ago
  Would be curious if they will ban claims that if the vaccine is released before the election then it is dangerous, and if it is released after it is not (a democratic talking point unfortunately).
• feralimal 6y ago
  Well done youtube!! About time! We should realise by now that Google, youtube, facebook and apple really DO have the truth! They studied truth hard, and know it! Why others don't know the truth is their problem. Its definitely not the case that the FAANG companies are espousing a self-serving opinion, nor that they are driving a politically divisive agenda for their benefit. Its just not that! So sorry - FAANG have the Truth, and those who get banned deserved it! And if you know what's good for you, you'd better learn the truth too and quick!
• christophilus 6y ago
  I’m not a fan of moves like this, but this is not the same thing as having your right to free speech infringed upon. You don’t have a right to appear on a public company’s video service. You have a right to say what you please (within limits) without fear of being punished by the government.
• fouric 6y ago
  The WHO parroted the CCP's line that there was no person-to-person transmission at the beginning of the pandemic[1]. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://mobile.twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
• m3kw9 6y ago
  This type of censorship is what other authoritarian countries viewed as half assed attempt to censorship. You are trying to censor somethings but need to really decide and every decision is scrutinized by everyone, also from the media. This is definitely a slippery slope towards censorship of even scrutiny
• excerionsforte 6y ago
  I question what constitutes censorship here to people? Is all censorship is bad? Moderation is bad? Should Hacker News in particular not have rules to censor content that does not follow rules? Censorship has and will always be part of our lives. The problem is the application of it. I applaud YouTube, Twitter and FB primarily for trying to not facilitate distribution of bullshit all because free speech. Free speech has limits in everyone's house.
  • wtetzner 6y ago
    And in what way are YouTube, Twitter and Facebook qualified to determine what's bullshit and what isn't? What really happens is that those services just end up forcing their values/beliefs on their users.
    • excerionsforte 6y ago
      You tried to twist my words. I called the content bullshit and not one of those services say it is. Anything they ban is considered to be violation of their ToS. If you have a dispute with the determination, you can file a lawsuit against them and have a judge determine if it was a violation of their ToS.
      • wtetzner 6y ago
        > You tried to twist my words. I did not try to twist your words. If I did, it was entirely unintentional. > I called the content bullshit and not one of those services say it is. You said: > I applaud YouTube, Twitter and FB primarily for trying to not facilitate distribution of bullshit all because free speech. I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it sounded to me like you were happy these services were trying to filter out bullshit. > Anything they ban is considered to be violation of their ToS. If you have a dispute with the determination, you can file a lawsuit against them and have a judge determine if it was a violation of their ToS. I'm not claiming anything about the legality of what they're doing. Only that I disagree with filtering content based on an arbitrary definition of "bullshit". If that is not what you were arguing, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
• superkuh 6y ago
  This is hardly the only thing or topic that youtube bans and will continue to ban. Youtube is extremely censorous and it's not just things that are 'bad'. This fits entirely within their existing behavior and is nothing novel. It isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It's just turning up the temp on the frog in the pot. Yes, people do need to stop centralizing in a single corporate entity to communicate. But is banning vaccine misinformation the reason to do it? No.
• wtetzner 6y ago
  This would be great in a universe where it was possible to know the truth with absolute certainty. Scientists disagree about this stuff, so how is YouTube in a position to determine what's misinformation and what isn't? Why is censorship suddenly so in vogue now?
  • gundmc 6y ago
    The article mentions specifically conspiracy theories saying covid vaccines will kill you or be used to implant tracking microchips. I don't think it takes a scientist to call that misinformation.
    • wtetzner 6y ago
      > YouTube said in an email that this would include removing claims that the vaccine will kill people or cause infertility > I don't think it takes a scientist to call that misinformation. Are you sure? If you haven't done the experiments, how do you know the safety of the vaccines and the likelihood of becoming infertile or dying? I'm not saying most of that isn't misinformation, because I don't know. What I am saying is that I don't trust YouTube to make that determination.
    • s8e4nrdghu 6y ago
      I guess you haven't looked into the ideas behind implanting trackable devices in vaccine doses (because that's crazy!), but here's something I pulled up in 3 seconds https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record/ https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-va... . I'm not sure that "misinformation" is the word I would use other than to characterize the categorical denial of people's concerns.
    • dx87 6y ago
      The article also says that they will remove videos that contradict the people they've decided are trusted experts. > YouTube says it already removes content that disputes the existence or transmission of COVID-19, promotes medically unsubstantiated methods of treatment, discourages people from seeking medical care or explicitly disputes health authorities’ guidance on self-isolation or social distancing.
• karmasimida 6y ago
  I don't see issue here How is this different than delisting video persuading people to get suicide?
• paganel 6y ago
  The Chief Scientist of the WHO still believed as recently as August that the mortality rate for this virus was still at 1% [1], even though Sweden had published its first data at the start of that month saying that the mortality rate in their case was around 0.4-0.6%. I've seen people mentioning a more recent CDC number of 0.35% mortality. So, when even the Chief Scientist of the WHO doesn't know what she's talking about then based on what premises will the YT censors carry out the censorship? [1] https://www.theweek.co.uk/108312/coalition-scientists-call-for-uk-herd-immunity-plan-could-it-work https://www.theweek.co.uk/108312/coalition-scientists-call-f...
  • dogma1138 6y ago
    Mortality rates change, they are also dependent environmental factors including population genetics, diet, prevalence of pre-existing conditions and the quality and availability of medical care. The statistics around case mortality rate and overall mortality rate also changes as new and more reliable data is gathered and analyzed, the WHO estimates was quite likely “correct” for the time frame and data they had available. The fact that Sweden published a data set that contradicts that doesn’t make their assumption false, or that “they don’t know what they are talking about”.
    • hartator 6y ago
      The WHO was arguing until February that covid-19 wasn’t transmissible person to person. They don’t know what they are doing.
  • summerlight 6y ago
    I don't buy mortality numbers around 0.3 ~ 0.5%; South Korea's data shows 1.76% mortality rate[1], which probably has collected one of the most comprehensive COVID-19 case database in the world as well as good medical infrastructures. [1] https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a20501000000&bid=0015&list_no=710848&act=view https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a20501000000&bid=00...
• austincheney 6y ago
  They do whatever they want. It’s a private platform. If you detest censorship then don’t use private platforms.
• johnminter 6y ago
  One nice feature on many social media platforms is that one can unfollow or block people who seem to generate more heat than light in their posts. I am willing to read and interact with someone with whom I disagree as long as the discussion remains civil and productive. Trolls have been around from the early days of the internet. I remember one student from Dartmouth that posted on many of the science newsgroups under the name Archimedes Plutonium. He continually posted that the Plutonium atom was God. This started many unproductive discussions and spammed many newsgroups. I'm sure you can imagine the flame wars... I am thankful that current social media lets me block/ignore trolls.
  • 51Cards 6y ago
    But you're counting on your intelligence to act as a filter. It has become very clear in the last many years that a non-insignificant percentage of the populace doesn't possess the knowledge or level of rational thought to properly evaluate what they are being fed en-mass. It's increasingly easy to exploit some people's herd mentality and lack of education to rise movements that can have significant impact. I often talk to people who suddenly spout off some random conspiracy theory because they read about it 10 times on Facebook and they lack the ability to evaluate it properly. I wholly agree that I'm not a fan of censorship but likewise I don't think private platforms have a responsibility to equally showcase what is known to be false. It's all going to be a mess no matter how you handle it... but permitting an endemic lack of education over the last generation has brought the concept of democracy to this point. I wish there was a clearer solution.
    • read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > It's increasingly easy to exploit some people's herd mentality and lack of education to rise movements that can have significant impact. Everybody always says this about everyone else.
• nathias 6y ago
  I hope they ban WHO first ... (for those who forgot, WHO was saying masks are not helping but actually hurt people in the beginning when there was a shortage of masks)
• gridlockd 6y ago
  "YouTube says it already removes content that disputes the existence or transmission of COVID-19, promotes medically unsubstantiated methods of treatment, discourages people from seeking medical care or explicitly disputes health authorities’ guidance on self-isolation or social distancing." Fortunately, there has been worldwide expert consensus on all of these things since day 1 of the pandemic, so YouTube does not find itself in the difficult position of acting as the arbiter of truth.
• lumberjack 6y ago
  I feel like nobody is addressing the elephant in the room: If you're getting your information about anything from Youtube, you're part of the problem.
• cannedslime 6y ago
  So what constitutes as misinformation? Science Youtubers like thunderf00t have been making regular updates on the subject, would that constitute for fake news? What about videos discussing the effects of stuff like masks and so on?
• whoknew1122 6y ago
  Now donate the ad money you generated off videos that contained misinfo. Otherwise this doesn't mean anything. Social media companies continue to profit off conspiracy and extremist content. Then when their position becomes politically untenable, they just say 'Oooops, our bad. Can't do post that anymore.' But they still get to keep the bags of money that content generated. It's a pretty sweet hustle they got going.
• cannedslime 6y ago
  Who is to say what is misinformation, the ministry of truth or what? This is getting rediculus. You can't barely comment on youtube anymore if what you have to say is even slightly un-pc or controversial.
• mancerayder 6y ago
  Hyperreality - Hyperreality is used in semiotics and postmodern philosophy to describe an inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality, especially in technologically advanced post-modern societies. Hyperreality is a way of characterizing what our consciousness defines as "real" in a world where a multitude of media can radically shape and filter an original event or experience. Hyperreality is seen as a condition in which what is real and what is fiction are seamlessly blended together so that there is no clear distinction between where one ends and the other begins. Hyperreality is a hypothetical communications infrastructure made possible by information technology. It allows the commingling of physical reality with virtual reality and human intelligence with artificial intelligence. Individuals may find themselves for different reasons, more in tune or involved with the hyperreal world and less with the physical real world. Hyperreality is what I thought of when I saw the comments here. I think, these are 20somethings and lower 30s techies who, despite living in an incredibly privileged time compared to decades ago, believe that they're living in the worst of times. Yes, there's meanness on Twitter, lies and manipulations in the media. I think if you live in that world, it's never been so "unstable" - a word used repeatedly in this thread's comments. Statistically, there is less not more deaths from things like terrorism, less not more things like racism and sexism, less not more suffering from disease and so forth. I'm talking about statistics, here, not perceptions. But the hyperreality of the Twitterverse paints a very different picture. So now we have grand essays defending censorship on the grounds that society is more unstable than it ever was. Than it has been in a decade, yes. Than it has been in 30, 50, 80 years? No.
• rbanffy 6y ago
  One idea I've been entertaining is to propose laws against abusing public office to promote materially false information. That, by itself, would force some measure of restraint.
• paradite 6y ago
  So the tide has turned. Maybe it is time for US to deal with these solved problems in China. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11405320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11405320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11406131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11406131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17876727 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17876727
• bpyne 6y ago
  I think we need to be careful about the free speech debate in this case. Free speech applies to civic life, not your relationship with a business. Near me we have a bar that doesn't tolerate swearing. On your first offense, the bartender gives a warning. On the second offense, you have to leave. The bar owner has the right to make a rule that makes his business a more pleasant environment. As a result, the bar does quite well. Google has the right to do the same in order to make the experience of YT better.
• infamy_gyms_stu 6y ago
  Would that mean that videos like this [0] which question the claims of Chinese vaccine manufacturers will be censored? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GirhNWy9yXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GirhNWy9yXY
• blhack 6y ago
  There was a period of time when mask wearing was considered misinformation: https://youtu.be/RxbDhECanU8 https://youtu.be/RxbDhECanU8 There was a time when vitamin D correlation was also considered misinformation. Maybe we shouldnt be looking to a group at YouTube to tell us what is true and what isn’t.
  • hartator 6y ago
    Yes, it’s really about blinding trusting one source.
• 34679 6y ago
  There was a point in time when the CDC were saying that masks are innefective at controlling the spread. I assume that was to mitigate hoarding in an effort to keep medical professionals supplied. If I had made a YouTube video explaining the effectiveness of masks during that time, whose video would have been removed, mine or the CDC's? Who would've made that decision and what method would they have used to reach their conclusion?
• uses 6y ago
  It's amazing the high percentage of HNers who want every online platform to become 4chan.
• umvi 6y ago
  @dang can I make a suggestion? On threads with high comment counts, put numerical pagination links at the very top of the comments. Otherwise to see the next pages of comments I have to scroll to the bottom, click "more", scroll to the bottom again, click "more" again... If I could just click a little "1", "2", "3", etc. to jump straight to second and third page top level comments, I think it would help improve visibility of those other top level comments.
  • ativzzz 6y ago
    Problem is it seems that the order of posts frequently changes within a discussion tree. I don't think HN was really built with these large discussions in mind.
    • umvi 6y ago
      Yeah but when I click "more" it's just a link to "https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24782944&p=2 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24782944&p=2" So I'm saying just add convenience links to `p=2`, `p=3` URL queries at the top of the page.
• root_axis 6y ago
  Who cares? Stop pretending like YouTube is an authoritative source on anything, it's an entertainment platform optimized for selling ads, not free-speech zone.
• cwhiz 6y ago
  The YouTube suggestion algorithm is the problem! Create a new account, watch any political video, and then click through the suggestions. Keep clicking through the suggestions and in hour you will be on some extremist nonsense. YouTube is the source of this problem, and their solution is censorship? It's ridiculous. Show people the videos they have subscribed or searched for, and that's it. The majority of people don't search out extremist content, they find it through suggestions and related videos. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube (Google) are the ones who have created these problems. They profit from this crap when people mindlessly flick through the suggestions. They profit when tweets, FB posts, or videos generate discussion and clicks. They profit when bots post content that actual humans click on and discuss. They have created these problems to pad their pockets. And now their "solution" to it is mass censorship. What an outrage. These companies need to be absolutely shattered into tiny little pieces.
  • formerly_proven 6y ago
    I remember the day I learned that Youtube comes preinstalled on iOS devices -- because the Youtube app somehow (despite never being used, let alone being logged into Google) managed to put a push notification on my home screen -- a push notification for a new upload from a fringe alt-right channel with just a few thousand views. Naturally, every single recommended video on that video was alt-right and far right wing with some Neonazis sprinkled in. Social media drives antisocial behavior and social division intentionally, because these bring huge numbers of clicks and thus ad money.
    • buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
      Youtube hasn't come preinstalled on iOS for like 8 years (removed in iOS 6).. so I really have no idea what you're getting at.
      • formerly_proven 6y ago
        Fair enough, according to my Apple ID history I did in fact install it a couple years ago. But the point still stands - the app wasn't used, not connected to any account, yet one day it still pushed extremist content to my home screen.
• umvi 6y ago
  > The video platform said it would now ban any content with claims about COVID-19 vaccines that contradict consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization. Has this hypothetical scenario ever happened historically: - Current scientific consensus is wrong - Scientist with dissenting theory is right - Consensus eventually changes to align with dissenting theory as evidence mounts for it I'm inclined to think it has happened many times in history, and will happen many times in the future. And if so, doesn't that mean we could get into a situation where step 3 (consensus realigning) doesn't happen because the truth is actively suppressed by every major speech platform?
• zadkey 6y ago
  It does more than that. I have heard of youtubers simply discussing it or sharing memes about it and their video getting demonetized.
• hairofadog 6y ago
  Sincere question for the folks who posit that any regulation of broadcast of information is pragmatically bad: do you think there's no problem with the scale of the disinformation campaigns in popular social media? Or that it's a problem, but same as it ever was? Or that it's an unsolvable problem? Or that there's some other solution?
• whiddershins 6y ago
  How do the determine what is misinformation. What precisely is the source. This is important, vitally important.
• mancerayder 6y ago
  What I find offensive is the idea that groups of individuals decide what information is good or bad for everyone. That implies we can't decide for ourselves, that experts should filter information before it gets to us. How naive is that, is there a lack of civic education and history in the dangers posed here?
• EL_Loco 6y ago
  I sort of feel like a dunce reading this thread, as I can't get my head around the fact that Youtube removing a video is being called censorship. Doesn't Hacker News let readers downvote unpopular opinions until they're effectively erased? Why isn't anyone calling HN on its censorship? Is it just the size of the viewership that matters, as if, after a big enough user threshold you have to act like a public service? I'm being honest here, why should Youtube have to host any uploaded video it doesn't want to? Question to free speech absolutists: should Youtube allow pornographic videos on its site? What about extremely violent videos, like car crash fatalities, etc? What about child pornography? Why does Youtube /have/ to host garbage? Isn't the issue here something else, that a lot of people now have bandwith to express what they want, yet the biggest channels for this expression are just like every other important commercial segment, in that a few very big companies are in control of most of the bandwith? When did network TV stations were accused of censorship if they didn't want to air a KKK ad, or interview one of its leaders just because he wanted to air his opinions on race?
• bitwize 6y ago
  The "marketplace of ideas" is, like "meritocracy", one of those dangerous libertarian myths that at one time were held as a given in internet culture. The truth is, ideas are less like market goods than they are like viruses. And dangerous ideas, like viruses, need to be suppressed before they can spread.
• jakeogh 6y ago
  Typical BS title. The modern "news" really cant help themselves. Youtube banned information that their censors disagree with. That's it. The rest is just labels that belie the fundamental truth: the MSM is a perception management platform, they see themselves not as providers but as deciders. Their consumers are really subjects, and they at every opportunity treat them as stupid.
• tamaharbor 6y ago
  YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook will quickly facilitate Civil War 2, if not the end of society as we know it.
• iron0013 6y ago
  Great news! There had been an awful lot of misinformation about coronavirus on YouTube
• Joypeter 6y ago
  I never thought i will ever have a good health again,i have been suffering from Herpes sine february ,not until one day i did a research on the Internet where i saw someone given testimony on how Dr Ajayi help her cured her herpes with his local herbal medicine,so i said to myself it also the same problem am having so i have to also contact the herbal doctor Dr Ajayi on his email which the lady recommended to anyone who might also need the herbal cure help. Wholeheartedly I am so grateful to this man as he has restored my health and made me a happy woman again. Anyone out there who might be facing the same problem should kindly contact Dr Ajayi as he knows he will help you with your problem as well on his email ajayiherbalhome@gmail.com. You can also call or whatsApp him through his mobile number +2348154724883...