4 ms·

Youtube is still censoring this topic. Two well known scientists testified before congress on GoF testing and the Corona Virus characteristics. That was pulle

Youtube is still censoring this topic. Two well known scientists testified before congress on GoF testing and the Corona Virus characteristics. That was pulled down within a few hours. I save all these videos but no idea what to do with them. [Edit] I found a copy of the coverage posted by Forbes [1] and as a matter of correction it is the GOP House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Select Coronavirus Crisis hearing [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeW5sI-R1Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeW5sI-R1Qg

briefcomment 5y ago
This is hilarious and ridiculous. How can they justify censoring testimony in Congress?
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  Supposedly it is not in alignment with the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) [1] or so people say. No idea if that is the real reason. [Edit] In this case I am thinking maybe Forbes had exclusive coverage and the other videos were pulled down for not having the rights to coverage. Just guessing because their upload is 3 days old. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative...
- echelon 5y ago
  Well, they recently did this too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686 I don't know if it's following their policies to the legal letter or if there's something else going on, but it's clearly bad in both of these cases.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kevingadd 5y ago
  It depends on what you believe the purpose of YouTube is. Just because it's congressional testimony that doesn't mean it's actually credible or vetted information. We have elected officials in the US regularly spouting absolute nonsense, so it's not implausible that the same people would also bring witnesses in to spout the same absolute nonsense, whether it's vaccines causing autism or something else.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
Stephen Quay is a "well known scientist" in a field completely unrelated to virology. He's a medical doctor who also does oncology research. Despite admitting to having no experience with Bayesian inference, he produced a "Bayesian analysis" of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Another person who testified at that hearing, David Asher (also not a virologist, or even a scientist, but rather a former State Department bureaucrat), has been trying to argue for a year that SARS-CoV-2 is a biological weapon designed by the Chinese military. The connection between Asher and Quay is that during the Trump administration, Asher led a group trying to prove that SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon. Asher refused to go to actual subject-matter experts, and instead had Quay do his "Bayesian analysis." When Asher was finally forced by another official to bring scientists with relevant expertise in to go over his evidence, they tore it to shreds.[1] These are simply not credible people to be getting your scientific information on SARS-CoV-2 from. 1. https://christopherashleyford.medium.com/the-lab-leak-inquiry-at-the-state-department-96973cff3a65 https://christopherashleyford.medium.com/the-lab-leak-inquir...
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  I stand corrected. Is any of what they said accurate?
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    I haven't watched their Congressional testimony, but I've read Quay's "analysis" and heard Asher propound on his bioweapon theory elsewhere. Quay's analysis is not a rigorous Bayesian analysis in any sense. It's a series of subjective judgments about likelihoods of various scenarios. It's classic garbage-in, garbage-out, dressed up as science by using the word "Bayesian." The thing is, Bayesian inference is only as good as the information and knowledge you put into it. Quay treats cancer patients and invents medical devices. He has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to virology. It's incredibly telling that he's the guy that pro-lab-leak congresspeople invite to talk, instead of an actual virologist. Asher is just a career political hack with no scientific background. Edit: Right off the bat, Quay's first claim in his testimony is highly dubious. He claims that the Huanan Seafood market was not where the virus spilled over, because supposedly the earliest version of the virus wasn't found in patients who were at the market. Two problems: 1. We don't actually know which is the oldest lineage of the virus. 2. Only a tiny fraction of people who got sick at the market have had samples taken. Probably hundreds of people at the market caught the virus and had mild or asymptomatic cases. We only have a few samples, from people who fell seriously ill. By the way, mortality evidence independently supports the Huanan market as the area of the first major outbreak.
devwastaken 5y ago
That's like saying a civil engineer gave testimony before congress about the Boeing MAX planes. Witness's before congress are chosen for political function, it doesn't give them any sort of automatic credibility.
- beaner 5y ago
  Okay. But this is still an actual congressional testimony for public consumption by our elected officials. By what reasoning should we not be allowed to see it?
  - devwastaken 5y ago
    Blanket ban. Even mentioning coronavirus can get your video demonitized. YouTube and Facebook have a significant problem of actual artificial conspiracy theories that have contributed to real death.
    - beaner 5y ago
      You mentioned this twice. "Contributed to real death." What do you mean specifically? Don't just use it as a scare quote. It's not a good enough justification anyway.
      - waldoh 5y ago
        Ashli Babbit, officer sicknick, and a few others all died due to a conspiracy theory spread on Facebook. Many others are threatened every day because of these conspiracy theories.
        mythrwy 5y ago
        Untrue, but also off topic.
        beaner 5y ago
        By this reasoning you could call critical race theory a conspiracy and say it "contributed to real death" through the 2020 summer protests and riots.

briefcomment 5y ago

This is hilarious and ridiculous. How can they justify censoring testimony in Congress?

LinuxBender 5y ago
Supposedly it is not in alignment with the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) [1] or so people say. No idea if that is the real reason. [Edit] In this case I am thinking maybe Forbes had exclusive coverage and the other videos were pulled down for not having the rights to coverage. Just guessing because their upload is 3 days old. [1] - https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative...
echelon 5y ago
Well, they recently did this too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646686 I don't know if it's following their policies to the legal letter or if there's something else going on, but it's clearly bad in both of these cases.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kevingadd 5y ago
It depends on what you believe the purpose of YouTube is. Just because it's congressional testimony that doesn't mean it's actually credible or vetted information. We have elected officials in the US regularly spouting absolute nonsense, so it's not implausible that the same people would also bring witnesses in to spout the same absolute nonsense, whether it's vaccines causing autism or something else.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

Stephen Quay is a "well known scientist" in a field completely unrelated to virology. He's a medical doctor who also does oncology research. Despite admitting to having no experience with Bayesian inference, he produced a "Bayesian analysis" of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Another person who testified at that hearing, David Asher (also not a virologist, or even a scientist, but rather a former State Department bureaucrat), has been trying to argue for a year that SARS-CoV-2 is a biological weapon designed by the Chinese military. The connection between Asher and Quay is that during the Trump administration, Asher led a group trying to prove that SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon. Asher refused to go to actual subject-matter experts, and instead had Quay do his "Bayesian analysis." When Asher was finally forced by another official to bring scientists with relevant expertise in to go over his evidence, they tore it to shreds.[1] These are simply not credible people to be getting your scientific information on SARS-CoV-2 from. 1. https://christopherashleyford.medium.com/the-lab-leak-inquiry-at-the-state-department-96973cff3a65 https://christopherashleyford.medium.com/the-lab-leak-inquir...

LinuxBender 5y ago
I stand corrected. Is any of what they said accurate?
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  I haven't watched their Congressional testimony, but I've read Quay's "analysis" and heard Asher propound on his bioweapon theory elsewhere. Quay's analysis is not a rigorous Bayesian analysis in any sense. It's a series of subjective judgments about likelihoods of various scenarios. It's classic garbage-in, garbage-out, dressed up as science by using the word "Bayesian." The thing is, Bayesian inference is only as good as the information and knowledge you put into it. Quay treats cancer patients and invents medical devices. He has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to virology. It's incredibly telling that he's the guy that pro-lab-leak congresspeople invite to talk, instead of an actual virologist. Asher is just a career political hack with no scientific background. Edit: Right off the bat, Quay's first claim in his testimony is highly dubious. He claims that the Huanan Seafood market was not where the virus spilled over, because supposedly the earliest version of the virus wasn't found in patients who were at the market. Two problems: 1. We don't actually know which is the oldest lineage of the virus. 2. Only a tiny fraction of people who got sick at the market have had samples taken. Probably hundreds of people at the market caught the virus and had mild or asymptomatic cases. We only have a few samples, from people who fell seriously ill. By the way, mortality evidence independently supports the Huanan market as the area of the first major outbreak.

devwastaken 5y ago

That's like saying a civil engineer gave testimony before congress about the Boeing MAX planes. Witness's before congress are chosen for political function, it doesn't give them any sort of automatic credibility.

beaner 5y ago
Okay. But this is still an actual congressional testimony for public consumption by our elected officials. By what reasoning should we not be allowed to see it?
- devwastaken 5y ago
  Blanket ban. Even mentioning coronavirus can get your video demonitized. YouTube and Facebook have a significant problem of actual artificial conspiracy theories that have contributed to real death.
  - beaner 5y ago
    You mentioned this twice. "Contributed to real death." What do you mean specifically? Don't just use it as a scare quote. It's not a good enough justification anyway.
    - waldoh 5y ago
      Ashli Babbit, officer sicknick, and a few others all died due to a conspiracy theory spread on Facebook. Many others are threatened every day because of these conspiracy theories.
      - mythrwy 5y ago
        Untrue, but also off topic.
      - beaner 5y ago
        By this reasoning you could call critical race theory a conspiracy and say it "contributed to real death" through the 2020 summer protests and riots.