10 ms·

Academic Media Censorship Conference Censored by YouTube

67 points by URfejk 6y ago

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Perhaps it was filled with misinformation? If so, the new rules say that it should just disappear. Too many people were thinking for themselves. It's much easier if the central powers save us from that hard work.
- reedjosh 6y ago
  I liked your witty response. HN seems to love authority these days.
undefined1 6y ago
Remember, the official word just last March was that masks don't work. Those who pushed back on that were harassed, called anti-science and suppressed. Why are people still under any illusion that they know what should be censored?
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  Fauci has lied to us twice now (that we know of). Mask efficacy was the first one. More recently, he's changed his story on required levels for herd immunity. He's raised that higher than the normal model would tell us, so I suspect that he was telling the truth before and now he's lying, but even if I'm wrong, it means he was lying before and has confessed now.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    Who cares about Fauci or anyone else. Go straight to the science. More transmissible strains means higher threshold for herd immunity, so yeah Fauci is right in this case to increase it given the spread of the UK, SA and Brazil strains. > but even if I'm wrong, it means he was lying before and has confessed now. Terrible logic.
    - CWuestefeld 6y ago
      No. Fauci actually admitted to having misled the public on the herd immunity thing: He said he hesitated to state a number as high as 90% weeks ago because many Americans still seemed skeptical about vaccine. “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci, who took his first dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine Tuesday, told The Times. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85. -- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/24/anthony-fauci-says-hes-been-intentionally-moving-g/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/24/anthony-fau... Further, this statement was made at approximately the same time that the UK variant was being discovered. There wasn't time for new R(t) numbers to be estimated. He was admitting to misleading us before the UK variant. > Go straight to the science. Yeah. So the model for herd immunity is well known: HI=(1-(1/R)). And we also have a good estimate of R(0) from CDC, about 2.5. That yields 60%. Following the science directly tells us that Fauci was actually telling the truth before, and it's today that he's lying.
  - Theory5 6y ago
    Its normal for the authorities on a subject like this to balance informing the public vs discovering all that can be known about something. Things change as they learn more. That's how this works. Saying they "lie" to you is stupid. They're telling you what they know, as they learn it. They are STILL learning new things and will be for years, which will change how we address and deal with this. For them to lie would mean they magically know everything about it and specifically choose not to tell you.
    - CWuestefeld 6y ago
      > For them to lie would mean they magically know everything about it and specifically choose not to tell you. In the case of both of Fauci's lies, he DID know the correct answer, but chose to mislead the public. His statements about masks were later justified by a claimed need to reserve PPE for medical personnel. And from my explanation in cousin comment[1], knowing the science shows us that he was actually telling the truth initially about herd immunity, and has recently changed his story to something not supported by the science. Now, there's surely an argument to be made for managing the information to prevent panic, and to guide people into doing the right thing. But I don't think that's valid in a system that's supposed to be founded on democracy, self governance, a government "of the people, by the people". If we're going to let supposed experts run things with no input from the people, then we have some kind of technocratic oligarchy, and not a democracy. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26009429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26009429
smlckz 6y ago
What a meta!
eclat 6y ago
Cancel culture and censorship agendas generally really need to end. They are mind bogglingly stupid.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  Cancel culture is a funny way of saying "people can disagree with what you say".
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy. When your disagreement with someone drives you to contact their employer and demand their dismissal, you've gone far beyond a right to disagree.
    - eclat 6y ago
      Textbook Motte and Bailey.
    - belltaco 6y ago
      >When your disagreement with someone drives you to contact their employer and demand their dismissal, you've gone far beyond a right to disagree. Sounds like they're exercising their right to free speech and you want to censor them. Looks like a case of "I only agree with free speech when its my side".
      - CWuestefeld 6y ago
        Sounds like you've somehow managed to divine my attitude toward people on my own side (whatever that might be), without me ever having mentioned it.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's pretty ironic that an article on the "Critical Media Literacy Conference of the Americas" is uncritically accepting the framing and suspicions of the conference organizers. In fact, being critical would have strengthened their case, because validating their story against the Internet Archive demonstrates that this channel did exist (https://web.archive.org/web/20201101020416if_/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGPZJTVIpNe-hroLo-CQ9wQ/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=1 https://web.archive.org/web/20201101020416if_/https://www.yo...) and provides specific video IDs that they could have asked Youtube about.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  The article appears to be more about validating negative worldviews than journalism. I'd like to hear more about the events from somewhere else. Edit: Looks like this is a better source, though I haven't read it yet. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
pavel_lishin 6y ago
So, what is the Washington Standard? I'm seeing: - ads for guns and ammo - claims that LGBTQ movement is destroying women's rights - An ad for Fox News - more claims about not trusting the media, CNN specifically Books and covers, etc. I don't really trust them to accurately describe the events that happened. (I don't know if that's ironic. Did 2020 claim irony as a victim?)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wegs 6y ago
  I tend to distrust web sites when I find they serve up false information. I don't tend to pattern match on speech/content patterns of groups I disagree with. You have half the country distrust anything with ads for guns, and the other half distrust anything that uses words like "woke" or "white supremacy."
  - pavel_lishin 6y ago
    I would argue that selling essential oils, and some medication that claims to cure nearly everything is false information. https://imgur.com/a/Qrb3Y1d https://imgur.com/a/Qrb3Y1d
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      Yes, and Fox is very big on health scare ads for older people. Elderly people lose their clarity gradually over time and not necessarily as a discretely detectable moment. Just as we restrict advertising to kids so ought we restrict advertising to the elderly.
      - pavel_lishin 6y ago
        In my limited experience, it's not just the elderly falling for this stuff.
im3w1l 6y ago
Hard to find information about who thewashingtonstandard are. They cite Mint Press, whose article is https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
tbalsam 6y ago
This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. I also really couldn't find a trace of this conference online, barring maybe a tiny FB page and an automatically generated hand/pen video with _13_ views? Also, this is on a semi-propaganda-if-not-outright-propaganda site that's been posted here. No social media movement on it that I can see, even on the supposed facebook page for it. It's almost as if it doesn't exist. And the article goes on for as long as it does talking about the conference being censored as it does the fact that we're living in 1984 (and a gratuitous attempt at connecting the WSB subreddit). Please, folks. This stuff is easily debunked and really dangerous to just share around. Why are we upvoting things like this? I thought we were better than this as a community.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  > This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. The link could be changed to more known mint press. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce... > This stuff is easily debunked Please be careful with this. While the website lacks reputation it seems it did happen as described in this case.
  - reedjosh 6y ago
    > This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. In agreement with im3w1l, simply attacking the website is pure argument ad hominem.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      Not necessarily. The website does not appear to be a source of legitimate information - that's a reasonable opinion to argue and relevant to the content the website presents. However, it is obviously true that an article being untrustworthy doesn't mean that the events are entirely false. So the GP made an attempt to validate them, and could not. That they failed does not make their post unreasonable, and it seems petty to attack them for it.
happytoexplain 6y ago
These look like ads, but they're not being blocked, so I guess they're just things this publisher would like me to consider: - Democrats mobilize US military to suppress domestic opinion - The LGBTQ MOVEMENT is destroying WOMENS RIGHTS - CNN SLAMMED For Lying About WallStreetBets GameStop Rebellion, The SLV Short Squeeze Is FAKE NEWS - Enter a contest to win a firearm - Clothing for LIBERTY LOVERS (I really enjoyed this one) - Save $15 on ammunition - Various "health secrets" Regardless of any reality that may legitimately be present inside this content, this website appears to be a typical clickbait machine that runs on political hate.
- barnaclejive 6y ago
  Yep, I have to admit I completely disregarded the article and its possible legitimacy after seeing the ads on that website.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
meta-meta-hilarious that HN readers are trying to censor this because it comes from a conservative outlet, even though it’s factually accurate. This is only getting worse. You kids need to do some soul searching.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  The insult is uncalled for. The article is untrustworthy because of the apparently biased and immoral nature of the publisher. The fact that they are conservative is a convenient thing to hide behind as a defense, but it is irrelevant. If they presented the same tabloid irrationality and hatred but with a liberal or non-political flavor, I would have the same opinion of them. There being something factually correct about this is a uselessly low bar for judgement. Luckily, what looks like a better source was already posted: https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Nothing in the article demonstrates irrationality or hatred. It’s not that there is something factually correct, it appears to be factually correct in its entirety. There is nothing wrong with it other than people assuming they don’t like who is saying it and reflexively trying to squash it on that basis alone. Oddly, all of your replies seem to be focused on “canceling” this source for dubious ad hominem reasons.
bhk 6y ago
And now this article gets flagged on HN...
- Theory5 6y ago
  Did you click that site? I can't read the damn article because of all the ads.

67 points by URfejk 6y ago

Perhaps it was filled with misinformation? If so, the new rules say that it should just disappear. Too many people were thinking for themselves. It's much easier if the central powers save us from that hard work.

reedjosh 6y ago
I liked your witty response. HN seems to love authority these days.

undefined1 6y ago

Remember, the official word just last March was that masks don't work. Those who pushed back on that were harassed, called anti-science and suppressed. Why are people still under any illusion that they know what should be censored?

CWuestefeld 6y ago
Fauci has lied to us twice now (that we know of). Mask efficacy was the first one. More recently, he's changed his story on required levels for herd immunity. He's raised that higher than the normal model would tell us, so I suspect that he was telling the truth before and now he's lying, but even if I'm wrong, it means he was lying before and has confessed now.
- belltaco 6y ago
  Who cares about Fauci or anyone else. Go straight to the science. More transmissible strains means higher threshold for herd immunity, so yeah Fauci is right in this case to increase it given the spread of the UK, SA and Brazil strains. > but even if I'm wrong, it means he was lying before and has confessed now. Terrible logic.
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    No. Fauci actually admitted to having misled the public on the herd immunity thing: He said he hesitated to state a number as high as 90% weeks ago because many Americans still seemed skeptical about vaccine. “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci, who took his first dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine Tuesday, told The Times. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85. -- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/24/anthony-fauci-says-hes-been-intentionally-moving-g/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/24/anthony-fau... Further, this statement was made at approximately the same time that the UK variant was being discovered. There wasn't time for new R(t) numbers to be estimated. He was admitting to misleading us before the UK variant. > Go straight to the science. Yeah. So the model for herd immunity is well known: HI=(1-(1/R)). And we also have a good estimate of R(0) from CDC, about 2.5. That yields 60%. Following the science directly tells us that Fauci was actually telling the truth before, and it's today that he's lying.
- Theory5 6y ago
  Its normal for the authorities on a subject like this to balance informing the public vs discovering all that can be known about something. Things change as they learn more. That's how this works. Saying they "lie" to you is stupid. They're telling you what they know, as they learn it. They are STILL learning new things and will be for years, which will change how we address and deal with this. For them to lie would mean they magically know everything about it and specifically choose not to tell you.
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    > For them to lie would mean they magically know everything about it and specifically choose not to tell you. In the case of both of Fauci's lies, he DID know the correct answer, but chose to mislead the public. His statements about masks were later justified by a claimed need to reserve PPE for medical personnel. And from my explanation in cousin comment[1], knowing the science shows us that he was actually telling the truth initially about herd immunity, and has recently changed his story to something not supported by the science. Now, there's surely an argument to be made for managing the information to prevent panic, and to guide people into doing the right thing. But I don't think that's valid in a system that's supposed to be founded on democracy, self governance, a government "of the people, by the people". If we're going to let supposed experts run things with no input from the people, then we have some kind of technocratic oligarchy, and not a democracy. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26009429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26009429

smlckz 6y ago

What a meta!

eclat 6y ago

Cancel culture and censorship agendas generally really need to end. They are mind bogglingly stupid.

pavel_lishin 6y ago
Cancel culture is a funny way of saying "people can disagree with what you say".
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy. When your disagreement with someone drives you to contact their employer and demand their dismissal, you've gone far beyond a right to disagree.
  - eclat 6y ago
    Textbook Motte and Bailey.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    >When your disagreement with someone drives you to contact their employer and demand their dismissal, you've gone far beyond a right to disagree. Sounds like they're exercising their right to free speech and you want to censor them. Looks like a case of "I only agree with free speech when its my side".
    - CWuestefeld 6y ago
      Sounds like you've somehow managed to divine my attitude toward people on my own side (whatever that might be), without me ever having mentioned it.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It's pretty ironic that an article on the "Critical Media Literacy Conference of the Americas" is uncritically accepting the framing and suspicions of the conference organizers. In fact, being critical would have strengthened their case, because validating their story against the Internet Archive demonstrates that this channel did exist (https://web.archive.org/web/20201101020416if_/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGPZJTVIpNe-hroLo-CQ9wQ/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=1 https://web.archive.org/web/20201101020416if_/https://www.yo...) and provides specific video IDs that they could have asked Youtube about.

happytoexplain 6y ago
The article appears to be more about validating negative worldviews than journalism. I'd like to hear more about the events from somewhere else. Edit: Looks like this is a better source, though I haven't read it yet. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...

pavel_lishin 6y ago

So, what is the Washington Standard? I'm seeing: - ads for guns and ammo - claims that LGBTQ movement is destroying women's rights - An ad for Fox News - more claims about not trusting the media, CNN specifically Books and covers, etc. I don't really trust them to accurately describe the events that happened. (I don't know if that's ironic. Did 2020 claim irony as a victim?)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wegs 6y ago
I tend to distrust web sites when I find they serve up false information. I don't tend to pattern match on speech/content patterns of groups I disagree with. You have half the country distrust anything with ads for guns, and the other half distrust anything that uses words like "woke" or "white supremacy."
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  I would argue that selling essential oils, and some medication that claims to cure nearly everything is false information. https://imgur.com/a/Qrb3Y1d https://imgur.com/a/Qrb3Y1d
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    Yes, and Fox is very big on health scare ads for older people. Elderly people lose their clarity gradually over time and not necessarily as a discretely detectable moment. Just as we restrict advertising to kids so ought we restrict advertising to the elderly.
    - pavel_lishin 6y ago
      In my limited experience, it's not just the elderly falling for this stuff.

im3w1l 6y ago

Hard to find information about who thewashingtonstandard are. They cite Mint Press, whose article is https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...

tbalsam 6y ago

This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. I also really couldn't find a trace of this conference online, barring maybe a tiny FB page and an automatically generated hand/pen video with _13_ views? Also, this is on a semi-propaganda-if-not-outright-propaganda site that's been posted here. No social media movement on it that I can see, even on the supposed facebook page for it. It's almost as if it doesn't exist. And the article goes on for as long as it does talking about the conference being censored as it does the fact that we're living in 1984 (and a gratuitous attempt at connecting the WSB subreddit). Please, folks. This stuff is easily debunked and really dangerous to just share around. Why are we upvoting things like this? I thought we were better than this as a community.

im3w1l 6y ago
> This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. The link could be changed to more known mint press. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce... > This stuff is easily debunked Please be careful with this. While the website lacks reputation it seems it did happen as described in this case.
- reedjosh 6y ago
  > This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. In agreement with im3w1l, simply attacking the website is pure argument ad hominem.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    Not necessarily. The website does not appear to be a source of legitimate information - that's a reasonable opinion to argue and relevant to the content the website presents. However, it is obviously true that an article being untrustworthy doesn't mean that the events are entirely false. So the GP made an attempt to validate them, and could not. That they failed does not make their post unreasonable, and it seems petty to attack them for it.

happytoexplain 6y ago

These look like ads, but they're not being blocked, so I guess they're just things this publisher would like me to consider: - Democrats mobilize US military to suppress domestic opinion - The LGBTQ MOVEMENT is destroying WOMENS RIGHTS - CNN SLAMMED For Lying About WallStreetBets GameStop Rebellion, The SLV Short Squeeze Is FAKE NEWS - Enter a contest to win a firearm - Clothing for LIBERTY LOVERS (I really enjoyed this one) - Save $15 on ammunition - Various "health secrets" Regardless of any reality that may legitimately be present inside this content, this website appears to be a typical clickbait machine that runs on political hate.

barnaclejive 6y ago
Yep, I have to admit I completely disregarded the article and its possible legitimacy after seeing the ads on that website.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

meta-meta-hilarious that HN readers are trying to censor this because it comes from a conservative outlet, even though it’s factually accurate. This is only getting worse. You kids need to do some soul searching.

happytoexplain 6y ago
The insult is uncalled for. The article is untrustworthy because of the apparently biased and immoral nature of the publisher. The fact that they are conservative is a convenient thing to hide behind as a defense, but it is irrelevant. If they presented the same tabloid irrationality and hatred but with a liberal or non-political flavor, I would have the same opinion of them. There being something factually correct about this is a uselessly low bar for judgement. Luckily, what looks like a better source was already posted: https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce...
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Nothing in the article demonstrates irrationality or hatred. It’s not that there is something factually correct, it appears to be factually correct in its entirety. There is nothing wrong with it other than people assuming they don’t like who is saying it and reflexively trying to squash it on that basis alone. Oddly, all of your replies seem to be focused on “canceling” this source for dubious ad hominem reasons.

bhk 6y ago

And now this article gets flagged on HN...

Theory5 6y ago
Did you click that site? I can't read the damn article because of all the ads.