6 ms·

""" Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform would be “removing information that is problematic”. "Anything that would go against World Hea

""" Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform would be “removing information that is problematic”. "Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy." """ April 2020. https://www.verdict.co.uk/youtube-coronavirus-ban-who/ https://www.verdict.co.uk/youtube-coronavirus-ban-who/

hn8788 6y ago
Considering that last year the WHO said that healthy people don't need to wear masks, that seems ike a pretty stupid policy for YouTube to keep.
- young_unixer 6y ago
  Not to mention the contradiction between the CDC and the WHO regarding asymptomatic spread.
- thelean12 6y ago
  Why in the world are you still throwing that line out like it means anything? 1. The world was desperately trying to get normal folks to stop buying up all the masks to save them for healthcare professionals. 2. Society didn't figure out the homemade mask trend for a while, nor did we figure out whether or not homemade masks would even work against covid for a while given all the factors, including people touching their face with the mask or feeling more empowered to interact with people with masks on. 3. At the time, it wasn't known how widespread covid was for the general public. Healthcare providers were massively more at risk and were reusing N95s for months. Could the orgs have done better with their messaging? Sure. But fuck off with this line. It's straight up disinformation to suggest that this is a reason not to trust the CDC or WHO or whatever.
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    Let me get this straight: you support Youtube's decision to censor accurate criticism of WHO guidelines, because you think spreading lies and disinformation served a useful purpose? That's despicable.
    - thelean12 6y ago
      What are you even saying? Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines? Or are you saying that YouTube should allow complete bullshit, lies, and misinformation mixed in with the few bits of fair criticism? Both options are completely absurd.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        Those are the only two options though because they either moderate or they don't... so what are you saying exactly?
        thelean12 6y ago
        I am saying: what are other options besides the two I mentioned, and the one that they're using? I'm saying that the two I mentioned are absolutely absurd. Not even worth a conversation. The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online.
        baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online. Ok, fair enough. However, in your original post (which appears to be no longer visible) you stated that Youtube made this particular decision to censor accurate information in order to spread lies (with a "common good" purpose). I don't like that.
      - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines? No, I don't think YouTube should be in the "arbiter of truth" business at all! That said, I do understand the argument some people make, that misinformation should be censored. Note that you didn't make this argument. You made the argument that misinformation should (in some cases) be promoted, while truthful information should be censored.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    I don't disagree with any of those points. WHO decided to burn their credibility in order to try and keep masks available for healthcare workers. Okay, fine. But that credibility is actually burnt. They can't un-burn it. As soon as it was apparent that they had ulterior motives by downplaying mask effectiveness, I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice. And they sure as hell don't deserve to be the arbiter of scientific speech. By choosing to rely on WHO's advice, YouTube's credibility caught flame as well. And how many people died from COVID because they received this message: "Masks aren't needed. WHO said so. Now they're backtracking because they want to control us."? Whatever benefit WHO created for healthcare workers early on by lying about masks was probably more than offset by the harm they caused with that loss of public trust.
    - thelean12 6y ago
      > And how many people died from COVID because they received this message: "Masks aren't needed. WHO said so. Now they're backtracking because they want to control us."? You're literally contributing to that message by discounting WHO as a valuable resource. > I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice. I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world. Are you just being petty? Are you lying for fun? Something else?
      - function_seven 6y ago
        No, I'm serious. I don't troll or lie on HN. > I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world. I understand their reasoning for trying to downplay masks. It wasn't good reasoning, but I see what their thought process probably was. But they didn't think ahead to the 2nd-order affects of ruining their credibility like that. Once they demonstrated that they're willing to put neutral data under the heel of PR concerns, then it is perfectly fair to see subsequent messaging from them as more of the same. I updated my priors. I'm not saying WHO is wrong now. I'm just saying they're not reliable. They are valuable if you're looking for data, but you better verify it and cross-check it. And you have to now consider possible alternative explanations for any message they put out there. That's my critical thinking skills at work. My trust in public figures and institutions (and NGOs) will return when I see them speaking more transparently. For example, "We don't know enough yet to determine if face masks reduce Covid risk, for the wearer or for others around them." Oh, and trying to save masks for healthcare workers by denying their effectiveness could never have worked anyway. As soon as it was apparent the workers all were masked up 24/7, the public would simply ask, "Why?".
- 988747 6y ago
  That recommendation turns out to be pretty good advice: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-facemasks-idUSKBN27Y1YW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-facema...
  - thelean12 6y ago
    Do you just look for headlines that confirm what you want to be true? "The findings are consistent with previous research. Health experts have long said a mask provides only limited protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even when showing no symptoms." Whether or not someone is "healthy" is completely irrelevant when you count that last part, "even when showing no symptoms". It's not good advice.
- rsanek 6y ago
  Turns out, cloth masks are barely effective (2% reduction in case growth after 100 days!). They should have kept their original stance. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm
justnotworthit 6y ago
No need to link to past censorship: She celebrated and promoted youtube's content restriction in her acceptance speach. Youtube unironically, whole-heartedly believes that "Censorship is Expression". Now the award makes sense. Add it to the "War is Peace" list.

hn8788 6y ago

Considering that last year the WHO said that healthy people don't need to wear masks, that seems ike a pretty stupid policy for YouTube to keep.

young_unixer 6y ago
Not to mention the contradiction between the CDC and the WHO regarding asymptomatic spread.
thelean12 6y ago
Why in the world are you still throwing that line out like it means anything? 1. The world was desperately trying to get normal folks to stop buying up all the masks to save them for healthcare professionals. 2. Society didn't figure out the homemade mask trend for a while, nor did we figure out whether or not homemade masks would even work against covid for a while given all the factors, including people touching their face with the mask or feeling more empowered to interact with people with masks on. 3. At the time, it wasn't known how widespread covid was for the general public. Healthcare providers were massively more at risk and were reusing N95s for months. Could the orgs have done better with their messaging? Sure. But fuck off with this line. It's straight up disinformation to suggest that this is a reason not to trust the CDC or WHO or whatever.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  Let me get this straight: you support Youtube's decision to censor accurate criticism of WHO guidelines, because you think spreading lies and disinformation served a useful purpose? That's despicable.
  - thelean12 6y ago
    What are you even saying? Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines? Or are you saying that YouTube should allow complete bullshit, lies, and misinformation mixed in with the few bits of fair criticism? Both options are completely absurd.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Those are the only two options though because they either moderate or they don't... so what are you saying exactly?
      - thelean12 6y ago
        I am saying: what are other options besides the two I mentioned, and the one that they're using? I'm saying that the two I mentioned are absolutely absurd. Not even worth a conversation. The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online.
        baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online. Ok, fair enough. However, in your original post (which appears to be no longer visible) you stated that Youtube made this particular decision to censor accurate information in order to spread lies (with a "common good" purpose). I don't like that.
    - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      > Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines? No, I don't think YouTube should be in the "arbiter of truth" business at all! That said, I do understand the argument some people make, that misinformation should be censored. Note that you didn't make this argument. You made the argument that misinformation should (in some cases) be promoted, while truthful information should be censored.
- function_seven 6y ago
  I don't disagree with any of those points. WHO decided to burn their credibility in order to try and keep masks available for healthcare workers. Okay, fine. But that credibility is actually burnt. They can't un-burn it. As soon as it was apparent that they had ulterior motives by downplaying mask effectiveness, I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice. And they sure as hell don't deserve to be the arbiter of scientific speech. By choosing to rely on WHO's advice, YouTube's credibility caught flame as well. And how many people died from COVID because they received this message: "Masks aren't needed. WHO said so. Now they're backtracking because they want to control us."? Whatever benefit WHO created for healthcare workers early on by lying about masks was probably more than offset by the harm they caused with that loss of public trust.
  - thelean12 6y ago
    > And how many people died from COVID because they received this message: "Masks aren't needed. WHO said so. Now they're backtracking because they want to control us."? You're literally contributing to that message by discounting WHO as a valuable resource. > I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice. I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world. Are you just being petty? Are you lying for fun? Something else?
    - function_seven 6y ago
      No, I'm serious. I don't troll or lie on HN. > I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world. I understand their reasoning for trying to downplay masks. It wasn't good reasoning, but I see what their thought process probably was. But they didn't think ahead to the 2nd-order affects of ruining their credibility like that. Once they demonstrated that they're willing to put neutral data under the heel of PR concerns, then it is perfectly fair to see subsequent messaging from them as more of the same. I updated my priors. I'm not saying WHO is wrong now. I'm just saying they're not reliable. They are valuable if you're looking for data, but you better verify it and cross-check it. And you have to now consider possible alternative explanations for any message they put out there. That's my critical thinking skills at work. My trust in public figures and institutions (and NGOs) will return when I see them speaking more transparently. For example, "We don't know enough yet to determine if face masks reduce Covid risk, for the wearer or for others around them." Oh, and trying to save masks for healthcare workers by denying their effectiveness could never have worked anyway. As soon as it was apparent the workers all were masked up 24/7, the public would simply ask, "Why?".
988747 6y ago
That recommendation turns out to be pretty good advice: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-facemasks-idUSKBN27Y1YW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-facema...
- thelean12 6y ago
  Do you just look for headlines that confirm what you want to be true? "The findings are consistent with previous research. Health experts have long said a mask provides only limited protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even when showing no symptoms." Whether or not someone is "healthy" is completely irrelevant when you count that last part, "even when showing no symptoms". It's not good advice.
rsanek 6y ago
Turns out, cloth masks are barely effective (2% reduction in case growth after 100 days!). They should have kept their original stance. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

justnotworthit 6y ago

No need to link to past censorship: She celebrated and promoted youtube's content restriction in her acceptance speach. Youtube unironically, whole-heartedly believes that "Censorship is Expression". Now the award makes sense. Add it to the "War is Peace" list.