29 ms·
“YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”
- idownvoted 5y agoThe world needs to de-Google. For videos that might be rumble.
- deadalus 5y agoYoutube Alternatives : Centralized : Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, Vidlii Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
- paulpauper 5y agoand none of the alternatives are even 1/100 as good or have nearly the same reach as youtube, which is how youtube is able to get away with what they do. VCs are much more interested these days in payment processing, which is where the money is, than video, which is expensive and hard to monetize..
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago>...and none of the alternatives are even 1/100 as good or have nearly the same reach as youtube None of this is the concern of YT and the content that they choose to host. By that logic, someone should be able to spam HN with information about my car's extended warranty due to it's reach.
- MattGaiser 5y agoSites that turn into landfills tend not to have very good reach nor be profitable.
- MiguelX413 5y agoMonetization is antithetical to user freedom because it requires centralization.
- kennywinker 5y agoMy blog doesn't have as big a reach as the front page of Apple.com, but that doesn't mean they have to put my content on there.
- rejectedandsad 5y agoThe most bizarre (or perhaps not..) part of this conversation is how many of the people that seem to promote the idea that YouTube should be compelled to host speech because of its reach self identify as libertarian.
- sms737 5y agoCombined they amount to 0.4% of YouTube's MAU.
- userbinator 5y agoMany of those are filled with even more fringe stuff like conspiracy theories, precisely because they wouldn't be allowed on YouTube. That makes it convenient for normalising public opinion, as anything on these alternative sites would be associated with even worse misinformation.
- simonh 5y ago> …if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. - Scott Alexander
- koheripbal 5y agoUnfortunately, the first thing to go to alternative sites is fringe content. As they gain traction, they become more "normal".
- 0x6A75616E 5y agoIn China, censorship is state-run. In America, it's been privatized.
- dalbasal 5y agoAnd the interaction between these two is coming into play as we sleep.
- jonathankoren 5y agoOnly someone that doesn’t understand what censorship is would say this. You’re arguing for government compelled speech.
- zoomgyal 5y agoWhat do you think censorship actually means? Private and Public organizations engage in censorship all the time. Youtube doesn't have to host these videos but it is still censorship. The word is morally neutral.
- tootie 5y agoIs Carnegie Hall censoring me by not letting me perform on stage just because I have no talent?
- erik_seaberg 5y agoIf only a handful of superstars are worthy, no. If everyone is worthy except for only you, yes.
- simonh 5y agoThere’s a grey area between censorship and editorial choice. For example is YouTube disallowing porn censorship? Pornhub seems to be doing very well. I think some of the social media platforms are making mistakes sometimes at the moment, but honestly they’re faced with very difficult choices. Ultimately they do have to make those choices, there’s no such thing as broadcast communications platforms without editorial selection of some kind.
- yashap 5y agoBased on YouTube’s reply, seems they took his video down for promoting dangerous medical misinformation. If that’s what happened, I don’t see an issue.
- ZephyrBlu 5y agoAnd how exactly do they determine whether something is "dangerous medical misinformation"? I'm guessing it's probably based on WHO guidelines, which means a very large number of things are off limits.
- tamaharbor 5y agoWasn’t the WHO (and CDC) incorrect regarding several aspects of the recent Coronavirus?
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThere is nothing wrong with being wrong. There is something wrong if the process was corrupted and corrections are not made if known.
- sb057 5y ago"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China." https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
- czzr 5y agoWhat exactly is wrong in that statement?
- pumaontheprowl 5y agoIt basically makes it impossible to propose any new medical treatment on Youtube when their definition of "misinformation" is really just "not proven to work." This would be more acceptable if they only banned discussion of treatments that are proven not to work, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
- piker 5y agoEric Weinstein is a clown, like, literally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein#Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein#Physics
- typon 5y agoWho owes his entire career to platforms like Youtube
- fighterpilot 5y agoYou mean figuratively, not literally.
- yhoneycomb 5y agoUnless you show me a picture of him dressed in a clown suit, no he is not literally a clown.
- ALittleLight 5y agoThis seems to say his proposed "Theory of everything" is lacking in several regards and not a good candidate for scientific or academic research. I don't see how that makes him a clown. He's interested in physics, educated in it, and made some effort to contribute that doesn't seem to have panned out. That strikes me as laudable behavior and not like a "clown". Perhaps you'll say he is a clown because he really believed in his own theory or tried to promote his work. Again, I'd disagree. He should believe in his work, if he didn't believe in it he should do something else. If he does believe in it then advocating for his own seems natural and appropriate. Regardless, this tweet is about YouTube censoring a discussion on the usefulness of ivermectin for covid patients. Eric Weinstein's physics ambitions hardly seem related.
- dash2 5y agoThe same could be said in praise of every crank. Presumably if he's a crank about physics, he could also be one about Covid.
- 5y ago
- micouay 5y agoWhat else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Bret (Eric's brother, biology PhD) had a 2h long conversation with Pierre Kory (MD) and it was taken down by YT. One of the things they talked was the recommendations of WHO and other organisations to focus on supportive care only (supporting the patient while their organism fights the disease by itself). They insist on not using other treatments outside clinical trials. The argument that running experiments would cost lives doesn't seem coherent. It's not like we have this 100+ yrs practice of dealing with SARS-CoV-2 epidemic with well established protocols. What if we're clinging to a suboptimal strategy?
- varispeed 5y ago> insist on not using other treatments outside clinical trials That signals they may have conflict of interest. For example accidentally finding a treatment that works, could mean huge loss for vaccine business. (Just to be clear, I am not anti-vax. I got vaccinated myself and I believe there is no better option right now, however, trying to limit doctors in finding other means sounds extremely fishy)
- marcinzm 5y agoTelling doctors to not randomly experiment on their patients outside of a controlled studies seems perfectly reasonable. Most medical groups tend to view uncontrolled human experimentation as very unethical and have for a long time.
- varispeed 5y agoWhat would you say about doctors prescribing e.g. random SSRI?
- marcinzm 5y agoPrescribing for what? Prozac, for example, is on-label approved for depression, ocd, panic disorder, bulimia and bipolar. I do believe doctors use too many medications off-label although I acknowledge that FDA on-label approval can be a large barrier.
- MilnerRoute 5y agoYouTube's position is that this is medical misinformation about Ivermectin. One of the comments on this Twitter thread argues the video "isn’t just advocating for more complete Ivermectin trials, he’s recommending its use based on a collection of low quality studies. That’s dangerous, and I don’t see how you can blame YouTube for deferring to the advice of the major health bodies on this matter." Personally I'd never heard of Ivermectin, so I Googled it, and for what it's worth the top result that came up was an official page at FDA.gov headlined "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19" https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
- zackees 5y agoThe only downside your possibly protecting people from is “false hope”, as the medication is very safe. The possible up side you’ll miss is an actual treatment that prevents an unnecessary negligent massacre of elderly people. Ivermectin was so effective early on that India gave it put for free to citizens early on in the pandemic. Many studies show it works well. The negative studies from the centralized institutes are possibly explained by regulatory capture and corruption.
- sbzidbms 5y ago“ YouTube's position is that this is medical misinformation about Ivermectin” Its medical information by a medical Dr. Its unclear who advices YouTube. As to the FDA, theres a long list of by government agencies making mistakes. Thats why open debate in necessary in an open society.
- Gibbon1 5y agoI remember doctors at UCSF saying last year that they were treating patients within the bounds of what they know. And not just trying random stuff. I think SF case fatality rate is lower than other places. Just saying. Disturbing to me is constant claims that treatment X is being failed not failing. Yes that's happened in practice. But people making that claim need to put up[1]. [1] First doctors that came up with an effective chemotherapy for leukemia faced a backlash when other doctors it didn't work. They had to show that the other doctors were making changes to the drug protocol.
- dingosity 5y agomeh. weinstien's an MD, not a scientist.
- pininja 5y agoThis is a controversial issue surrounding the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin, a prescription drug, as an COVID-19 treatment. Edit: the issue surrounds efficacy too.
- OrvalWintermute 5y agoThis is not an issue around the safety of Ivermectin, as it is an incredibly well-known drug that is now off patent. This is a discussion around efficacy. It is similar to the MD asks around using a Zpak for Covid.
- pininja 5y agoI agree with highlighting efficacy as a main discussion topic as well. However, I disagree the controversy doesn’t include arguments around drug safety. As long as the FDA has guidance up like this [1] it’s going to be a part of the discussion. [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
- jbritton 5y agoFrom the link above: “The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway.” This is a serious failure of the FDA. ivmmeta.com is a meta-analysis of all ivermectin studies (58 studies as of now). This meta-analysis shows ivermectin to be very effective, and the FDA isn’t even looking. This has been the situation for 9 months now.
- manwe150 5y agoThey seem to be the same site as https://hcqmeta.com/ https://hcqmeta.com/, and while their data collection and aggregation looks excellent, their use of meta-statistics seemed mathematically questionable to me in the past, potentially leading to confusing messaging: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949919. Also perhaps worth highlighting the note at the top of their pages saying they believe vaccination is better: "While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection." This seems mathematically defensible to me, since a vaccine that is 95% effective is a 33% risk reduction over a treatment that is 80% effective, per some of the estimated averages on that page (since going from 5% remaining risk to 15% risk is 3 times more cases).
- callesgg 5y agoWhile ridiculous, Eric Weinstein is a bit over the top with his accusations from time to time. For example Blaming the physics community for not looking in to his personal “unity” theories more.
- jb775 5y agoSounds like the physics community wrote him off without actually considering his ideas because he didn't fit the charlatan-leftist mold of your typical physicist academic. Per Wikipedia[1]: The paper qualifies that the author "is not a physicist" but an "entertainer", and it has received strong criticism from the scientific community [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein#
- renewiltord 5y agoThis guy doesn’t fit the mold? He’s got all the crank characteristics: you have to subscribe to his newsletter to download the draft of this so called GU model, it apparently says he’s an entertainer not a physicist, etc. I’m happy to oppose placing YouTube in the position where they have to censor stuff. But that doesn’t change that this guy’s behavior is pure bozo bit setting. And sure he’s the brother or whatever but that’s who we’re discussing.
- opheliate 5y agoMaybe it "sounds like" that to you, but as far as I can see, the physics community considered Weinstein's theory, and disagreed because they thought it was wrong: See [1]. Does everything have to be seen through this left-right lens? I'm highly sceptical that an important discovery in physics would be written off by any academic because its author didn't appear left-wing enough. 1: https://timothynguyen.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/geometric_unity.pdf https://timothynguyen.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/geometric_...
- seoaeu 5y ago...the paper was also released on April 1st, which further boosts it being a joke.
- 5y ago
- MattGaiser 5y agoThe makers of Ivermectin are against the use of Ivermectin for Covid. https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use... The dissenters are advocating things even the company that stands to profit from those things opposes. That’s how off the deep end this is.
- ZephyrBlu 5y agoThe company has another upcoming drug they want to push rather than ivermectin: https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1402647948371005441 https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1402647948371005441 E: To add, I'm not a doctor but Brett Weinstein seems adamant that ivermectin is a very safe drug for humans. One point he has made is that because ivermectin is safe for consumption, there's no (Or very little) downside to taking it in an attempt to prevent or help with COVID.
- Pyramus 5y agoSo you are asserting they don't want to benefit from both?
- ZephyrBlu 5y agoI don't know much about the economics of drugs, but I've seen this type of statement a few times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496008
- Pyramus 5y agoI don't get it, why would Merck leave money on the table. Merck has and will develop many more Covid drugs. It does not make sense to bet everything on one horse where there is a lot of uncertainty and risk that any drug will see the light of day. I get that it makes sense as a narrative device to discredit Merck ("big pharma has acted against our interest in the past, so they are acting against our interest here"), but it does not make sense from Merck's point of view.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jwilber 5y agoOn the’censored’ man’s attempted foray into a different field, physics: “ The paper qualifies that the author "is not a physicist" but an "entertainer", and it has received strong criticism from the scientific community, including having "no visible impact" and having "gaps both mathematical and physical in origin that jeopardize Geometric Unity as a well-defined theory, much less one that is a candidate for a theory of everything.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein#Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein#Physics
- SnowProblem 5y agoWhat is this slander? That is a completely separate topic, one which wikipedia cannot do justice in a paragraph, and neither can you. Second, the tweet is about Brett's censored video, not Eric. Watch the video.
- jwilber 5y agoI looked the man up, found an interesting tidbit, and posted it. I can see how it comes off as me not liking him, but I really have no idea who he is, so I’ll explain why I posted that quote I saw: If an individual is in question for taking non-standard stances in an academic field, then any history of non-standard stances from said individual in other fields, and responses to them, are relevant IMO. If you disagree no worries, downvotes can reduce the opacity to zero.
- _holographic_ 5y agoEveryone that study the subject will see that the evidence for Ivermectin is overwhelming. https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ The suppression of a cheap & effective C19 drug is a crime against humanity.
- raverbashing 5y agoGarbage In Garbage Out Open-Label studies on some poor country are not "quality evidence". (On the other hand I don't take that manufacturer's statement as a fair and honest assessment of the drug) We do need serious studies on the repurposing of drugs, but people take it as their silver bullet.
- ds206 5y agoNo one is paying for studies where there is no money to be made later. It's a chicken and egg problem in a way. Ivermectin is cheap and off patent.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> No one is paying for studies where there is no money to be made later A number of public and philanthropic groups write grants. I’ve written grants. And just because a commercial interest funds a study doesn’t mean it’s B.S.
- ds206 5y agoOh I'm not saying that commercial interest automatically makes a study BS. I'm saying that commercial interest is commercial interest so why would it fund a study that isn't commercially viable? Ivermectin isn't a money maker. It's a life saver. Vaccines and other new solutions are money makers and life savers (they hope)
- _holographic_ 5y agoGarbage sure, as the many testimonies from doctors all around the world that say it works spectaculary. Big Pharma is running the show so no one is going to finance fancy double blind RCT´s. It´s completely crazy to ignore treatments for C19, this disease is easily treatable on symptom onset.
- splithalf 5y agoThis is the direct result of giving out too many phds. There’s no signal, only noise. Trust in our academics, rightfully, in rapid decline. Habermas come to pass.
- ds206 5y agoIt's funny how everyone agreeing with YouTube hasn't watched the video in question. Y'all are very opinionated on the 2nd or 3rd level information instead of the primary source. Par for the course these days...
- tsimionescu 5y agoThe purpose of a site like HN is exactly to give quality 2nd or 3rd hand accounts, so I don't need to watch an hour long video to form an opinion on it. There are many, many orders of magnitude too much 1st hand knowledge in the world for anyone to comb through. If you want to be informed on a broad range of topics, the only chance is to go by reporting that you trust, and for a great many people, that includes comments on HN. If you have a contrary read of the video, it would be better to share it rather than lamenting that the thousands reading this thread don't each spend time watching it in person.
- ds206 5y agoRight, the video in question is literally the reporting I trust. The video itself appears (to me) to be between qualified people talking about medical information is a careful way like adults. Maybe you should watch it? Just the first 15 mins?
- unparagoned 5y agoThe bits I watched were just full on conspiracy type comments about how even the manufacturer is only saying the drug doesn't work due to various conspiracy reasons. I recommend people to watch it to see how much of a crank bret is and how its clearly dangerous conspiracy nonsense being spouted
- ds206 5y agoOhh you have a thing for Bret. Me too, I think he's great ;) I recommend people to watch it too.
- gameswithgo 5y agoWish a day could go by where i don’t here from a weinstein about how they are being silenced
- stkdump 5y agoIt seems to be quite an effective strategy.
- jb775 5y ago...but they are being silenced. Are you really not aware of the level of wrongthink censorship going on? Things are literally being proven true that were censored as "misinformation"(wrongthink) a month ago. Next up: election was actually a huge fraud.
- loceng 5y agoThis is HN, full of as many ideologues as anywhere else, perhaps on average of higher intellect - though as Jordan Peterson mentions in Beyond Order - intelligent ideologues are the most dangerous.
- 99_00 5y agoThat's clever but you don't here from the ones that have been fully silenced, like Alex Jones. And yes he is everything you are going to say he is but so is Rachel Maddow. Supporting the establishment has its benefits as it always has for as long as humans have had socially stratified societies.
- tmule 5y agoIt is hard to come up with a good framework for this: this is a classic exploration (possibly effective and cheap remedy) versus exploitation (known remedies that are really mostly unavailable to the developing world) mechanism. In general, even there exploitation mechanism has been questionable for many things COVID-related (debate around making), and the establishment flip-flipping on the lab leak theory doesn’t inspire confidence.
- fighterpilot 5y agoDoes anyone know what exactly was said in the original video?
- micouay 5y agoThe entire conversation has been uploaded to Bitchute https://www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/
- cm2187 5y agoThanks. Couldn't load it but it looks like it is on vimeo too: https://vimeo.com/557811163 https://vimeo.com/557811163
- seventytwo 5y agoOh, would you look at that… there’s a perfectly viable YouTube alternative being used. Whodathunkit?
- zephyr1 5y agoThanks YouTube for liberating us from having opinions. Imagine how dangerous that could be!
- beebeepka 5y agoJust the wrong ones
- Mountain_Skies 5y agoJust the unapproved ones.
- IshKebab 5y agoSorry, what exactly do you think is wrong with shutting down cranks and conspiracy theorists? You may hope we live in a happy world where everyone can evaluate information fairly and detect nonsense perfectly but I'm afraid we don't. Go and have a conversation with my aunt who thinks that the government (there's only one I guess) created Covid in order to kill all the old people and save money on state pensions. Guess where she learned that.
- zephyr1 5y agoIf it's a crank conspiracy theory it should be easy to disprove. If it's more complicated then that, then you shouldn't be so confident you're the smart guy in the room.
- japgolly 5y agoIt takes orders of magnitude more effort to counteract bullshit than it does to produce it. Your opinion doesn't scale and not only is it easily exploitable by bad actors, it's happening in practice all over the place these days and is a huge, huge problem.
- zephyr1 5y agoOr maybe your arguments aren't as good as you think...
- colour 5y agoI spent the entire day discussing this in a flame war with some arrogant asshole on Wikipedia, he seemed quite involved in tech so I hope that he sees this just to spite him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Kory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Kory To be very clear, I am not inviting a continuation of the flames.
- pumaontheprowl 5y agoIf McDonald's mistreats me, I can go to Wendy's or Burger King and get a similar meal for a similar price. When Youtube mistreats me, where am I supposed to go? BitChute? Vimeo? Neither of those have even half the creators as Youtube. And if creators want to migrate off Youtube, how are they supposed to do that when they'll get less than 10% of the audience on the other sites? Youtube's moat way is too deep to be threatened by any competition no matter how technically advanced the competition is. Youtube is a monopoly and needs to be regulated as such. The electric company can't cut off my power because I was using their electricity to discuss experimental medications, so why should Youtube be allowed to deny me access to the online public square for the same reason? If Youtube wants to be the thought police of their users, they need to first allow an alternative to survive.
- aurizon 5y agoIf you used your electricity to kill people by electrocution, what would the authorities do? So if you suggest weak/indecisive/unknowledgeable people avoid vaccination for measles/smallpox/covid/polio are you sugesting they kill themselves? Should the authorities take action? A parent whose child dies from one of these diseases might differ. Measles has a 2% death risk, smallpox 30%, covid 0.5%, polio ~~25% paralysis of symptomatic cases. Back when Columbus came here, measles had a 50% death rate as there was near zero herd immunity, now we have it and death and severe stuff is~2%
- yhoneycomb 5y agoAgreed, but I think at this point the US government is too drunk on power that it'll never give up the control it has on its citizens through Youtube. And people say the US is the land of the "free." What a joke.
- davidwu91 5y agoYoutube is owned by a private entity that regularly exerts influence on the government, but it is not the government itself. The favoritism afforded to companies like Youtube is due to changing antitrust laws, and the rise of free market fundamentalism in the US, more than anything else. The notion that the state is is favorable to Youtube because it wants exert some kind of control over people is true; the nature of that control, however, is fundamentally oligarchical, rather than cultural or whatever is being implied here.
- MiguelX413 5y agoJust use Peertube
- Aunche 5y agoPeople with deep agendas like to imagine everyone else has an agenda as well. In reality, YouTube just wants to make as much money as possible. If people die taking alternative medical treatments for covid, an angry mob will come and demand Disney pull ads from YouTube again. If you have a problem with the censorship, blame the cancellers, not YouTube.
- renewiltord 5y agoThis is what people have always wanted. The bloody paternalists are winning in America and they want to tell us what we’re allowed to watch. “Facebook is responsible for radicalization” Nah, Facebook just links you to like minded people. You have a problem facing the fact that it’s your grandpa who is a racist shit, that your brother is an incel, and that your sister thinks trans women shouldn’t be allowed to use women’s toilets. So you blame Facebook. So you guys decide you want to blame Facebook and Twitter and YouTube. They’re “not doing enough”. Let them be and get your grandpa off them if you care so much.
- lph 5y agoIt's hilarious to see libertarians whining about being oppressed by corporations. Like, dude, isn't your whole philosophy that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want without regard for anybody else? Go start your own YouTube. It's what Galt would have done.
- fastball 5y agoThat is the philosophy of an anarcho-capitalist, not a libertarian (at least not one I've ever met).
- zthrowaway 5y agoThat really worked out for Parler. It’s hilarious seeing the left defend corporations.
- wwweston 5y agoThe people defending actions corporations are taking here are: (a) hardly limited to "the left" (b) essentially defending the right of most to decide for their own reasons that they won't amplify or carry certain forms of speech they disagree with Opposition to this basically says someone can be legally compelled to participate in saying anything they disagree with or even find harmful. If you're on board with that, I look forward to you graciously providing me with an unlimited easement to put up signs of my choice on your lawn.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y agoThat goes against their NAP theology then which means the corporations aren't playing by the rules. Newsflash, that's what happens when a monopoly exists! I mean I'm pretty selfish, but I'm not so naive to think that total capitalism is good. Your lord becomes someone you can't elect or petition because they own everything. Eventually your money flows to them so you can't fight back at all.
- pochamago 5y agoThere's a very common misconception that libertarians believe that what should be legal and what is beneficial are the same thing. It's not difficult to believe that YouTube should have the ability to remove these people from their platform, but also that they're wrong to do so. The libertarian preference for decentralization actively presumes that many actors will make poor choices, but that because it's not enforced top down it will be easier to persuade them to change those policies. New competitors are one way that you can create that pressure, but it's not the only one, simple dialogue is another viable avenue and the purpose of critiques like this one.
- rglover 5y agoYes, that's what pseudo-authoritarian institutions do when they want to subvert and homogenize society's belief system. You could see this coming from a million miles away. No one should be shocked, especially those that egged it on (not finger-pointing at Eric or his brother here).
- nojito 5y agoThere so many individuals who think that cynicism or even criticism is a sign of intelligence, but it's actually a sign of ignorance. For whatever biological reason, humans associate those who do that with being more intelligent than everyone else.
- lupire 5y agoWhat were the Weinsteins saying about ivermectin, which YouTube cited in the ban?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Kim_Bruning 5y agoA quick search on pubmed shows that limited trials on Ivermectin have been done, and more trials are underway. It certainly seems to work in vitro, but needs higher concentrations than have been tested to be safe in vivo so far. So... it sort of depends on what the people were saying in their videos. If they're saying it's a possible hopeful contender for near future: that's true. If they're saying "buy lots of ivermectin now", without any qualifying statements, that might be different.
- koheripbal 5y agoThe top podcast on Virology has talked about Ivermectin many times, including the most recent episode. They agree that it looks interesting and we should reserve judgement until a clinical trial is completed. If that sort of talk is being removed - then it's a massive over-reach.
- rejectedandsad 5y agoHere's my confusion - why do they think there's a conspiracy against them because Ivermectin is off patent when COVID is on the verge of being beat in the west because of widespread vaccination?
- seventytwo 5y agoBecause they’re amoral grifters who are looking to cash in on fake outrage.
- seattle_spring 5y agoHow am I not at all surprised that Eric Weinstein is also a proponent of chronic Lyme.
- RickJWagner 5y agoThings are getting really weird. Consider these stories that have been recently spun: - Origins of Covid. For a while, it was 'settled' that a lab leak was totally a wacky conspiracy. Somehow the science has become unsettled, though. - It seems there really was a laptop owned by a major politial candidate's son. (And it seems to have have contained some conversations that reveal same son likes to use the n-word) - It turns out the story about why people were tear-gassed out of a park was totally false. This was a major news headline during a hot political campaign. We are being lied to! No matter how you like to vote, you should favor honest news and legitimate science. YouTube shutting down dissenting PhDs and MDs seems like it's not a good thing.