8 ms·
YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
- boxerab 5y agoIgnorance is Strength
- benmw333 5y agoFreedom is Slavery
- shadilay 5y agoWar is Peace
- francisduvivier 5y agoOld is new again
- gonnano 5y agoIt was the best of times
- lambdaba 5y agoI'd like to hear from critics of Bret that have actually watched his content, in particular the episode with Dr. Pierre Kory. Do you support YouTube's decision? What about YouTube taking down Dr. Kory's Senate testimony?
- doesnotexist 5y agoOne person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience just isn't the standard for medical evidence. If any of these people really wanted to change medical practice, they are aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary. Taking to youtube and twitter to claim it's a conspiracy but making no effort to actually do the work to prove your hypothesis, brings into question their motives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan
- lambdaba 5y agoDid you watch the episode with Dr. Kory and, if so, what are your objections on what was being said? Note that as far as I can tell and remember, YouTube policy at that time was that content not in line with health authorities was not allowed, but since then Ivermectin was explicitly added (I might be wrong, that's just what I remember when I looked it up).
- Jimmc414 5y agoYou obviously haven't watched the episode nor are you familiar with Bret and Heather's rigorous scientific approach regarding this topic.
- doesnotexist 5y agoCall me old fashioned but I don't source my medical evidence from two creators on youtube.
- Bancakes 5y agoI, too, only trust people in labcoats.
- doesnotexist 5y agoAhem, I prefer beanie propeller hats.
- Jimmc414 5y agoAs I already stated, Bret and Heather both have PhD's in biology and the episode in question with Dr. Kory also featured Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. You are misrepresenting the content.
- zepto 5y agoI’m curious about their motive for misrepresenting the content - I agree that they are, but it’s not obvious what the angle is for a commenter here.
- mikedilger 5y agoNOT HAPPY WITH YOUTUBE SPLITTING UP SOCIETY: I'm not happy that YouTube (having a strong network-effect monopoly on online video content) has decided to close the Overton window so much. People interested in the information will get it elsewhere. These kinds of policies have caused people who follow edgy content to find that content elsewhere, and those "elsewheres" can be very nasty and radicalizing places (such as BitChute). I wish YouTube kept people from getting radicalized, but they seem to push people away and into those radical corners... SCIENTISTS ARE NOT BEST ADJUDICATORS, BETTER HYPOTHESIZERS: Bret and Heather are scientists and as such are not necessarily of the best mental positioning to adjudicate facts. How so? Scientists should form hypotheses and argue for them. Scientists must as a group take on and argue for multiple hypotheses, vigorously. The data will decide who wins. It is quite appropriate that Bret and Heather have taken up hypotheses in regards to Ivermectin and in regard to possible damage from the vaccines. That doesn't make these views "the final word" or even "stated as factual". I think Bret and Heather would agree and I think they try to make clear that their opinions are hypotheses. As an example, Bret had a guest on who argued that the number of deaths associated with vaccinations was off the charts. Bret didn't agree but didn't counter-argue. The information was highly misleading. Last episode (on Odysee) they brought up a paper studying Israel where via vaccinations for every 3 people saved, 2 are lost. They weren't at all critical of the author's credentials, nor did they even seem to have read the paper yet, which was quite flawed. Mallen Baker's latest video goes into that a little bit. Mallen Baker is IMHO a very good adjudicator of facts. I have a lot of respect for Bret and Heather and I think what they are doing is important. But it is also easy to be confused by them and to "follow" their beliefs as if they were clearly correct, when they are actually quite speculative beliefs. All that being said, everyone communicates on social media now and scientists need to communicate just like the rest of us. If YouTube doesn't want to be the conduit for open communications, some other platform will be.
- lambdaba 5y agoStrange how this was suddenly removed from the frontpage. Is this done manually?
- Jimmc414 5y agoI noticed that as well.
- ve55 5y agoThis is common for political content (often that leans in any direction) due to user flagging.
- nwienert 5y agoHow is this political?
- CodeGlitch 5y agoPossibly to do with Bret Weinstein's time at Evergreen State College? The woke mob ousted him.
- colejohnson66 5y agoLike it or not, COVID is a politically charged topic (in the US). One side of the political spectrum vehemently opposed mask mandates, while the other said we should wear them. If the two major political parties can’t agree on something, it’s a political topic. It’s sad that as millions of people were dying, the two parties couldn’t agree on the simplest of things, but it is what it is.
- jasonharris555 5y agoWondering as well.
- the_third_wave 5y agoThat is why it is better to access sites like HN through the RSS feed [1] and ignore the front page. The feed shows which articles are posted in order of appearance, without manipulation. It also enables you to choose which articles to read without being influenced by the placement on the front page or the number of upvotes it got. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/rss https://news.ycombinator.com/rss
- doesnotexist 5y agoIt would seem that the creators actually relish this because it's a great attention grabbing tactic. It's the same thing as click bait headlines "one weird trick"... trying to goad the platforms into enforcing their policy so that you can jump up and down about how you're being "censored"... A certain kind of audience, prone to conspiratorial myth, will flock to these creators and the "controversy" like moths to the flame. https://twitter.com/NovelSci/status/1404819889454342159 https://twitter.com/NovelSci/status/1404819889454342159
- lambdaba 5y agoThe channel was half their income, and there's no reason to doubt their sincerity. Maybe the end result is what you say, but your comment was about their intentions.
- jasonharris555 5y agoExcept the problem with your theory is that Bret doesn't make content related to conspiracy theories...
- doesnotexist 5y agohttps://twitter.com/fravizza/status/1409690047662592003?s=20 https://twitter.com/fravizza/status/1409690047662592003?s=20
- jasonharris555 5y agoOnce again YT caves into the mob and cancel culture which has targeted an innocent victim. If you read into the story of Bret Weinstein and evergreen state college you'll see that Bret is actually the target of racism, not the other way around. I have watched Bret's content on YT and his content is always high quality and very well researched. He keeps an open mind to topics and thoroughly researches stuff before dismissing it. Once again YT is in the wrong here.
- doesnotexist 5y agoProfessional wrestling for pseudo-intellectuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_Creates_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_Creates_Cash
- 0-_-0 5y agoHe lost his job at Evergreen. Now, the ivermectin controversy cost him half his income.
- Jimmc414 5y agoThis should not be flagged. Bret and Heather both have PhD's in biology and the episode in question with Dr. Kory also featured Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. This is science not politics.
- threatofrain 5y agoScientific conversation happens between people who are actually practicing in the field. Scientists on social media are just engaged in promotion. When Neil Degrasse Tyson talks on YT, I consider that a combination of promotion and pedagogy. But that's not science. He's not engaging in scientific conversation with fellow colleagues. This is not an indictment on Dr. Tyson's expertise, but it is a criticism on confusing scientific discourse with mass media promotion. Another difference I'd draw between any other scientific field is that astrophysics is largely orthogonal to matters of public health or finance. Likewise, a math crank is much less likely to cause damage than a doctor promoting a drug, or a finance expert promoting an investment. Health and finance are very special fields, and they deserve to be treated so in the arena of mass media promotions.
- Jimmc414 5y agoYou shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens.
- pwinnski 5y agoThis statement, "You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens," is anti-scientific. I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's description in _The Demon-Haunted World_ of people who make profoundly unscientific statements using the words of science, because they want the authority and respect accorded those words, not realizing that the authority and respect comes from the methods of science, not just the words. You don't "decide" "where" science happens. It's not a question of rights. It demonstrably does not happen at your will or on the basis of your decision. It happens the way science happens, because that's what science is. A scientist eating a sandwich is not doing science. A scientist talking on YouTube is not doing science. A scientist doing science is doing science. That's not my decision, it's the definition of science.
- Jimmc414 5y agoIt is very disappointing that a discussion regarding YT censorship of good science can be taken down this easily on HN.
- LatteLazy 5y agoI heard his name over the Evergreen thing but forgot it. I listened to the episode "Doing science in an emergency" [0]. It's terrible. Lots of circular logic and self congratulation. It reminded me of reddit's "IAmVerySmart" sub. I don't think anyone should be banned (he hasn't been), but this isn't a hill for anyone to die on. He seems to have fallen into a weird rabbit-hole where he fails to admit any possibility of error on his own part. Ivermectin does seem to be a very poor candidate as a treatment for C19 [1]. People have been made very sick ODing on it. So maybe stop pushing it? [0] https://podyssey.fm/podcast/itunes1471581521-Bret-Weinstein-DarkHorse-Podcast https://podyssey.fm/podcast/itunes1471581521-Bret-Weinstein-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Ivermectin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_repurposing_rese... Edit: the irony of being down voted by his supporters without anyone engaging is not lost on me.
- ALittleLight 5y agoI downvoted you because it seems like your comment is largely composed of empty insults ("it's terrible", "reminded me of reddit's 'IAmVerySmart' sub", "weird rabbit-hole"). You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic). You say he fails to admit any possibility of error whereas I know that he readily admits the possibility of error. There are also a few cases where your comment is misleading. You write that he isn't being banned, neglecting that his videos are being removed, his channel getting strikes, and his channel getting demonetized. YouTube is clearly censoring and suppressing his content and he is clearly on track to get banned. You say that some people have been made very sick ODing on Ivermectin, which is true, but only when they take massive amounts and is also true of the vast majority of drugs. Taking massive overdoses of anything is ill-advised. You write, again without explaining, that Ivermectin is a "very poor candidate as a treatment" - which is an odd claim to make given that Ivermectin is cheap, safe, and has at least some experimental data suggesting it may have uses. And, also, Ivermectin is being used in Latin America and India as a treatment currently. To sum that up as "a very poor candidate" strikes me as disingenuous. Hope this help clarifies why at least one person is downvoting you.
- perl4ever 5y ago
- tablespoon 5y agoWho are Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, and why are the controversial?
- mikewarot 5y agoThere are certain topics which Youtube will not allow, they have various soft means of enforcing boundaries around those edges. One of those topics is analysis and discussion of Covid 19. They (Bret and Heather) have been very careful to stay within the stated rules, yet this still happened. At some point, enough of us viewers will decide that it is worth overcoming the network effects, and get used to some new platforms for content sharing. There are plenty of things you won't see anymore on YouTube. A year or two ago, videos focused on guns were removed. Even machine shop channels talking about the machining of parts had those videos removed. Our ability to discuss things like adults is under threat.
- blooalien 5y ago> Our ability to discuss things like adults is under threat. Our ability to discuss things like adults has been under threat for a shockingly long while now, and only been getting worse. This is partly due to such a large portion of society being unable to discuss things like adults without lapsing into political "Us vs Them"-ism nearly instantly. On a related note; Why exactly is it that such a large portion of the discussion here tends toward actual adult conversation? Is it purely because of the specific type of crowd this platform attracts? Is there any lesson that could be learned by the larger platforms from this to improve their services in this regard?
- mikewarot 5y ago>Why exactly is it that such a large portion of the discussion here tends toward actual adult conversation? I attribute it to a few things that work in synergy 1. The voting model, and structure of the site work well for the crowd that gathers here. Keeping spam away is automated enough to keep the signal to noise high. 2. Dang keeps us from doing stupid things consistently enough that we collectively have learned good manners. 3. We've all seen how quickly things can get swamped, to make us really appreciative of what we've got here, and more careful about doing stupid things. 4. Upvoting, etc. are paced such that you don't get access to a bit of power until you understand it. It's subtle enough but very effective. 5. The management is not driven to push "engagement" or "stickiness" by the need to sell advertising. If you took the codebase and started again, I'm not sure it would work more than 5% of the time.
- diragon 5y agoWeinstein went (or revealed himself to be) pretty much crazy around the time Trump lost the elections. I'm having really hard time believing now that he's being "censored" because he's "talking about science". There are better reasons.
- rayiner 5y agoI guess I should be glad that Internet censorship went from “it will only be flat earth and Holocaust denial” to Hays Code so fast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code) that the problematic nature of this is impossible to deny.
- tmellon2 5y agoThere are a few folks with some pedigree desperate for attention on Social media. They refer obliquely without evidence to plausible methods or peddle 'click-bait' thoughts. Mr.Bret Weinstein and his brother Mr.Eric Weinstein, appear to belong to this category - they kind of support each other well. Mr.Eric Weinstein for example, dangles a few incomplete physics theories without any formal proof. This is in sharp contrast to true legends like Mr.Grigori Perelman who posted a complete proof of the Poincare conjecture on Arxiv and turned down the Fields Medel.
- alessandroetc 5y agoI don't understand why businesses insist on betraying the very values they were built on in the first place. YouTube has always been about helping people feel heard and giving them a voice through their platform. Decisions like this one simply prove that in a few years they'll likely be defined as a publisher and not a platform.