5 ms·

Here's a response: YouTube is chock-full of dubious health information. But only this one got banned. Why? For the record, since I've been muzzled from respo

Here's a response: YouTube is chock-full of dubious health information. But only this one got banned. Why? For the record, since I've been muzzled from responding further, I don't believe that it was "money".

guscost 5y ago
And here’s the correct response to you: Money.
- dang 5y ago
  You've posted something like 9 unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in this thread. That has a seriously damaging effect on discussion, especially when the topic is divisive as this one is. I'm sure you don't intend that, but the effects work that way regardless of intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
  - guscost 5y ago
    I disagree strongly. Conflict-avoidant platitudes have much less substance.
    - dang 5y ago
      Something else having less substance does not make your comments substantial.
      - guscost 5y ago
        Well this is another very tricky one, I’ll give you that. So many N-order effects. I still disagree strongly with your characterization of “substance” in this context though. E.g. when another user sent this (ad-hominem) challenge: > Why is it that everyone who pushes Ivermectin as a miracle cure for COVID is also a conspiracy aficionado? I responded with a simple and dispassionate explanation, rather than taking offense. Is there no “substance” in my entirely coherent, well-argued, and non-emotional reply? > Simple. You have defined the latter as some variation on the former. Perhaps you could call out my "what a pair of years" top-level comment as that was not responding to any of the nasty attacks in this thread, or even dogpiling on the excellent arguments that other people are making. But those kinds of comments function to put me on the record here with a timestamp, so I can link to them later. There is a tiny bit of substance even in those. It sounds like you might prefer that I disengage and flag all of the nasty posts (e.g. another person in this thread implied that I am a murderer) so "the bureaucracy" can fix this conversation? Sorry, you are a great moderation team, but I am not going to do that, because I don't believe it is a real solution to anything. You cannot fix this kind of conversation from the top down - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Trying will just disenfranchise the out-group further and make the echo-chamber effect worse. If that means this topic cannot be on HN, so be it.
        dang 5y ago
        These were super low quality posts, as well as being obviously baity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562722 Please stop posting like that. It's not hard, and doesn't need complex argumentation.
        guscost 5y ago
        On the other hand, many of my hot takes over the years have been celebrated, but it seems to happen when they are long and dense (and not personal attacks). Perhaps it is because fewer people read/flag them. Perhaps it is because this community values eloquence (or effort) over substance. Add to that the built-in handicap because this community (like every other) values in-group opinions much more than out-group opinions, and it doesn’t make sense to even try better/longer arguments. I’m going to stop participating in controversy on this site, and move the infowar project over to audio chatrooms, where a conversation like this actually has a chance. To everyone else: Arguing controversial topics with strangers, in Reddit-style text threads, is primitive and ineffective. The technology is insufficient for the task, and it will never get better.
  - lvs 5y ago
    I'm disappointed you are not more active in pulling these snake oil posts from the front page.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Seconded. The whole Ivermectin saga does not deserve the attention that it is getting, those that are relentlessly pushing it are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic and lead to people getting ill and some fraction of those will die. I've read up on this thing as much as I could and it's quite simple: there is at this point in time zero hard evidence that it works in humans short of using it in dosage that is well outside the range that we have data on. It's just the HCQ story warmed over.
      - effie 5y ago
        > are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic Can you make an argument that people going for natural immunity and relying on currently used COVID treatment protocols in case they decide it is needed will prolong the epidemic more than if they took the vaccine? Maybe it will do the opposite, as 1) natural immunity may be stronger, last longer 2) some number of non-vaccinated people getting sick, getting isolated and taking effective treatment may on the whole infect less people than if that same number of people gets vaccinated and then interacts with other people and potentially spread the infection more because they don't get strong symptoms. I'm not saying that you are incorrect, just that the argument that getting vaccinated solves the epidemic quicker isn't clear.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Modulo a few hundred thousand deaths those mechanisms have the same outcome. If you're ok with that by all means, go push herd immunity through infection.
        effie 5y ago
        There are effective treatments available now, it is not clear that well-treated infections would lead to more deaths than vaccinations.
happytoexplain 5y ago
This doesn't address the parent's question - it's only a criticism of YouTube's potential hypocrisy.

guscost 5y ago

And here’s the correct response to you: Money.

dang 5y ago
You've posted something like 9 unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in this thread. That has a seriously damaging effect on discussion, especially when the topic is divisive as this one is. I'm sure you don't intend that, but the effects work that way regardless of intent: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- guscost 5y ago
  I disagree strongly. Conflict-avoidant platitudes have much less substance.
  - dang 5y ago
    Something else having less substance does not make your comments substantial.
    - guscost 5y ago
      Well this is another very tricky one, I’ll give you that. So many N-order effects. I still disagree strongly with your characterization of “substance” in this context though. E.g. when another user sent this (ad-hominem) challenge: > Why is it that everyone who pushes Ivermectin as a miracle cure for COVID is also a conspiracy aficionado? I responded with a simple and dispassionate explanation, rather than taking offense. Is there no “substance” in my entirely coherent, well-argued, and non-emotional reply? > Simple. You have defined the latter as some variation on the former. Perhaps you could call out my "what a pair of years" top-level comment as that was not responding to any of the nasty attacks in this thread, or even dogpiling on the excellent arguments that other people are making. But those kinds of comments function to put me on the record here with a timestamp, so I can link to them later. There is a tiny bit of substance even in those. It sounds like you might prefer that I disengage and flag all of the nasty posts (e.g. another person in this thread implied that I am a murderer) so "the bureaucracy" can fix this conversation? Sorry, you are a great moderation team, but I am not going to do that, because I don't believe it is a real solution to anything. You cannot fix this kind of conversation from the top down - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Trying will just disenfranchise the out-group further and make the echo-chamber effect worse. If that means this topic cannot be on HN, so be it.
      - dang 5y ago
        These were super low quality posts, as well as being obviously baity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562722 Please stop posting like that. It's not hard, and doesn't need complex argumentation.
        guscost 5y ago
        On the other hand, many of my hot takes over the years have been celebrated, but it seems to happen when they are long and dense (and not personal attacks). Perhaps it is because fewer people read/flag them. Perhaps it is because this community values eloquence (or effort) over substance. Add to that the built-in handicap because this community (like every other) values in-group opinions much more than out-group opinions, and it doesn’t make sense to even try better/longer arguments. I’m going to stop participating in controversy on this site, and move the infowar project over to audio chatrooms, where a conversation like this actually has a chance. To everyone else: Arguing controversial topics with strangers, in Reddit-style text threads, is primitive and ineffective. The technology is insufficient for the task, and it will never get better.
- lvs 5y ago
  I'm disappointed you are not more active in pulling these snake oil posts from the front page.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Seconded. The whole Ivermectin saga does not deserve the attention that it is getting, those that are relentlessly pushing it are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic and lead to people getting ill and some fraction of those will die. I've read up on this thing as much as I could and it's quite simple: there is at this point in time zero hard evidence that it works in humans short of using it in dosage that is well outside the range that we have data on. It's just the HCQ story warmed over.
    - effie 5y ago
      > are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic Can you make an argument that people going for natural immunity and relying on currently used COVID treatment protocols in case they decide it is needed will prolong the epidemic more than if they took the vaccine? Maybe it will do the opposite, as 1) natural immunity may be stronger, last longer 2) some number of non-vaccinated people getting sick, getting isolated and taking effective treatment may on the whole infect less people than if that same number of people gets vaccinated and then interacts with other people and potentially spread the infection more because they don't get strong symptoms. I'm not saying that you are incorrect, just that the argument that getting vaccinated solves the epidemic quicker isn't clear.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Modulo a few hundred thousand deaths those mechanisms have the same outcome. If you're ok with that by all means, go push herd immunity through infection.
        effie 5y ago
        There are effective treatments available now, it is not clear that well-treated infections would lead to more deaths than vaccinations.

happytoexplain 5y ago

This doesn't address the parent's question - it's only a criticism of YouTube's potential hypocrisy.