6 ms·

Based 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.

by yashap 5y ago

ZephyrBlu 5y ago
And 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 ago
  Wasn’t the WHO (and CDC) incorrect regarding several aspects of the recent Coronavirus?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    There 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 ago
      What exactly is wrong in that statement?
- pumaontheprowl 5y ago
  It 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.
- loceng 5y ago
  In fact you'd still need a prescription for Ivermectin from a physician, and that's where the curation/filter layer should be occurring - distributed amongst thousands of doctors vs. dictated by YouTube et al.
comodore_ 5y ago
Seems like you missed the point entirely. Who determines what "dangerous medical misinformation" is? As shown, today's "debunked conspiracy theory" can be deemed credible next year. big tech colluding with gov entities to punish dissenting views seems like a very bad idea.
trentnix 5y ago
> Based 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. After the bang up job they've done dealing with copyright strikes, demonetizing their political enemies, and providing virtually zero support and feedback for the very creators that contribute to the popularity of their platform, you'd have to be a sadomasochist to trust YouTube to be the arbiter for "dangerous medical misinformation" or any other "dangerous * misinformation" they decide to sensor.
- bonzini 5y ago
  Who did they demonetize? Alex Jones?
  - realce 5y ago
    Oh no bother, they're just taking houses away from Gypsies!
  - __turbobrew__ 5y ago
    Firearms related channels was a big one. Even education based firearms channels such as forgotten weapons had problems.
    - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      Same with homesteading and agricultural channels that give instructions on slaughtering livestock even though the same content is allowed on PBS.
    - bonzini 5y ago
      'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
xf1cf 5y ago
Do Google/Alphabet/YouTube have an on-staff biology team who are actively publishing in the field to counter his information? Or are they doing take downs at the request of anonymous dissenters? It is always strange the dichotomy of views here. Since COVID it seems to be trending towards "Question everything, except the current dogma".
ALittleLight 5y ago
YouTube allows pro-anorexia content and influencers to influence young girls - but having a couple PhD's discuss possible off label uses for ivermectin is going too far? The issue is that YouTube has no ability to determine what is or isn't dangerous medical information. Running a video distribution service doesn't make you a medical expert.
whoooooo123 5y ago
"Puberty blockers are fully reversible and their long-term effects are safe and well-understood" is dangerous medical misinformation too, but YouTube doesn't take those videos down.
- IshKebab 5y ago
  I'm sure they would if it were national news that they weren't. Just because they haven't taken it down doesn't mean that they approve of it. You're just resorting to whataboutism. "You didn't catch my mate Dave when he murdered that guy so I don't see why you should care about this little stabbing here..."
  - ttt0 5y ago
    You never saw a media blackout?
s9w 5y ago
"dangerous", "hate", "debunked"

Based 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.

by yashap 5y ago

Based 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 ago

And 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 ago
Wasn’t the WHO (and CDC) incorrect regarding several aspects of the recent Coronavirus?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  There 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 ago
    What exactly is wrong in that statement?
pumaontheprowl 5y ago
It 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.
loceng 5y ago
In fact you'd still need a prescription for Ivermectin from a physician, and that's where the curation/filter layer should be occurring - distributed amongst thousands of doctors vs. dictated by YouTube et al.

comodore_ 5y ago

Seems like you missed the point entirely. Who determines what "dangerous medical misinformation" is? As shown, today's "debunked conspiracy theory" can be deemed credible next year. big tech colluding with gov entities to punish dissenting views seems like a very bad idea.

trentnix 5y ago

> Based 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. After the bang up job they've done dealing with copyright strikes, demonetizing their political enemies, and providing virtually zero support and feedback for the very creators that contribute to the popularity of their platform, you'd have to be a sadomasochist to trust YouTube to be the arbiter for "dangerous medical misinformation" or any other "dangerous * misinformation" they decide to sensor.

bonzini 5y ago
Who did they demonetize? Alex Jones?
- realce 5y ago
  Oh no bother, they're just taking houses away from Gypsies!
- __turbobrew__ 5y ago
  Firearms related channels was a big one. Even education based firearms channels such as forgotten weapons had problems.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Same with homesteading and agricultural channels that give instructions on slaughtering livestock even though the same content is allowed on PBS.
  - bonzini 5y ago
    'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

xf1cf 5y ago

Do Google/Alphabet/YouTube have an on-staff biology team who are actively publishing in the field to counter his information? Or are they doing take downs at the request of anonymous dissenters? It is always strange the dichotomy of views here. Since COVID it seems to be trending towards "Question everything, except the current dogma".

ALittleLight 5y ago

YouTube allows pro-anorexia content and influencers to influence young girls - but having a couple PhD's discuss possible off label uses for ivermectin is going too far? The issue is that YouTube has no ability to determine what is or isn't dangerous medical information. Running a video distribution service doesn't make you a medical expert.

whoooooo123 5y ago

"Puberty blockers are fully reversible and their long-term effects are safe and well-understood" is dangerous medical misinformation too, but YouTube doesn't take those videos down.

IshKebab 5y ago
I'm sure they would if it were national news that they weren't. Just because they haven't taken it down doesn't mean that they approve of it. You're just resorting to whataboutism. "You didn't catch my mate Dave when he murdered that guy so I don't see why you should care about this little stabbing here..."
- ttt0 5y ago
  You never saw a media blackout?

s9w 5y ago

"dangerous", "hate", "debunked"