4 ms·

> "Our rules do not allow content that states that hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin are effective in treating or preventing COVID-19, that states there is a

> "Our rules do not allow content that states that hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin are effective in treating or preventing COVID-19, that states there is a cure for the disease, or says that masks do not work to prevent the spread of the virus," it said in a statement." Weird, I can still find on YT videos stating that masks don't work and we shouldn't wear them from the Surgeon General, Fauci, The Guardian, NYT, and other major experts, institutions and media. When will they be purged? The Guardian: > Masks should not be weared and they are potentially unhelpful because they give a false sense of security https://youtu.be/gASCBhA2bE4 https://youtu.be/gASCBhA2bE4 I will report it right now for the greater good.

bsaul 5y ago
don't ! they're actually the last proof we have "scientific consensus " on those issues is a myth.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  Did you actually watch the video? It's from Feb 2020. That's the thing about scientific consensus: It evolves over time with the discovery of new evidence.
  - bsaul 5y ago
    Viral propagation has been studied for decades, and studies are still being made on what the greatest factor is. In general, there's still absolutely no explanation on why some regions seem spared and other not. Models have been proven wrong time and time again, especially in the covid crisis. My point is that those kind of videos are important to understand why some people frown upon radical decisions ( such as censorship) being taken based on today's "consensus".
    - Pyramus 5y ago
      What do you even mean? We are almost two years into this pandemic and the coincidental benefit of different countries reacting differently is that we have a pretty good understanding what the factors are that drive the spread of SARS-Cov2 and it's variants. It's by no means perfect, but it's surprisingly good. > Models have been proven wrong time and time again, especially in the covid crisis. That's an important take-away: models are only as good as the assumptions, all models are wrong to some extent. This becomes especially apparent if you try to predict things, which is easy to get wrong. The real strengths of models is not to predict, but to explain.
      - bsaul 5y ago
        The real strengths of models is not to predict, but to explain now that's a bold claim... if i'm not mistaken general relativity ultimate test was actually to predict trajectories we hadn't observed yet. i can model any behavior happening in the past, with a sufficient number of parameters in my equation. that doesn't say much on the quality of the model.
  - jylyphltkm 5y ago
    It's interesting that in Asia scientific consensus was already evolved when the pandemic hit. Also, the first time I bought face masks was during the bird flu scare of 2005. Governments also bought billions of face masks after the 2009 pandemic to be ready for the next one and we had to start from zero again. But somehow, the "scientific consensus" rolled back and all the evidence was lost.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - candiodari 5y ago
    Sorry, that’s not the reason. Fauci has since stated that he was lying to protect the supply of masks for medical purposes. Whilst the scientific consensus has evolved on masks, that has nothing to do with this lie (stating information you know to be wrong as fact is called lying). Nor does it have anything to do with his change of heart. https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20c6-8735-4022-a1f5-1580bc732c45 https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20... (and of course it proves what everyone does kind of knows: misinformation doesn’t just come from “weird” aunts on Facebook and Russians, but from official authorities if they feel lying to you would protect their interest, conveniently equated to societal interest. This becomes especially questionable when financial authorities do it and especially reprehensible when politicians use their positions in authorities to further their own agenda/ideology. Doubly so when it’s racist)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
underseacables 5y ago
Only ‘popular’ videos will be removed, perhaps. There are videos on YouTube espousing hate and violence, lies and slander, but they only get a handful of use. YouTube seems to only care when these get popular, possibly because they fear the advertisers. I would like to see a video service that does not censor unless its acts of, or incitement, of violence or breaking the law.
cirrus3 5y ago
Good. Do it. I will too if I see them still showing up. Yes, weird, but they were also clearly stating their action about these videos in particular, not an action against all of them. As I'm sure you can imagine, it is much easier and reliable to pull videos from a particular user than all videos related to a certain subject. If they did that, they'd probably risk also taking down Joe Rogan (which at this point would be awesome, but also a very bad).

bsaul 5y ago

don't ! they're actually the last proof we have "scientific consensus " on those issues is a myth.

Pyramus 5y ago
Did you actually watch the video? It's from Feb 2020. That's the thing about scientific consensus: It evolves over time with the discovery of new evidence.
- bsaul 5y ago
  Viral propagation has been studied for decades, and studies are still being made on what the greatest factor is. In general, there's still absolutely no explanation on why some regions seem spared and other not. Models have been proven wrong time and time again, especially in the covid crisis. My point is that those kind of videos are important to understand why some people frown upon radical decisions ( such as censorship) being taken based on today's "consensus".
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    What do you even mean? We are almost two years into this pandemic and the coincidental benefit of different countries reacting differently is that we have a pretty good understanding what the factors are that drive the spread of SARS-Cov2 and it's variants. It's by no means perfect, but it's surprisingly good. > Models have been proven wrong time and time again, especially in the covid crisis. That's an important take-away: models are only as good as the assumptions, all models are wrong to some extent. This becomes especially apparent if you try to predict things, which is easy to get wrong. The real strengths of models is not to predict, but to explain.
    - bsaul 5y ago
      The real strengths of models is not to predict, but to explain now that's a bold claim... if i'm not mistaken general relativity ultimate test was actually to predict trajectories we hadn't observed yet. i can model any behavior happening in the past, with a sufficient number of parameters in my equation. that doesn't say much on the quality of the model.
- jylyphltkm 5y ago
  It's interesting that in Asia scientific consensus was already evolved when the pandemic hit. Also, the first time I bought face masks was during the bird flu scare of 2005. Governments also bought billions of face masks after the 2009 pandemic to be ready for the next one and we had to start from zero again. But somehow, the "scientific consensus" rolled back and all the evidence was lost.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- candiodari 5y ago
  Sorry, that’s not the reason. Fauci has since stated that he was lying to protect the supply of masks for medical purposes. Whilst the scientific consensus has evolved on masks, that has nothing to do with this lie (stating information you know to be wrong as fact is called lying). Nor does it have anything to do with his change of heart. https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20c6-8735-4022-a1f5-1580bc732c45 https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20... (and of course it proves what everyone does kind of knows: misinformation doesn’t just come from “weird” aunts on Facebook and Russians, but from official authorities if they feel lying to you would protect their interest, conveniently equated to societal interest. This becomes especially questionable when financial authorities do it and especially reprehensible when politicians use their positions in authorities to further their own agenda/ideology. Doubly so when it’s racist)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

underseacables 5y ago

Only ‘popular’ videos will be removed, perhaps. There are videos on YouTube espousing hate and violence, lies and slander, but they only get a handful of use. YouTube seems to only care when these get popular, possibly because they fear the advertisers. I would like to see a video service that does not censor unless its acts of, or incitement, of violence or breaking the law.

cirrus3 5y ago

Good. Do it. I will too if I see them still showing up. Yes, weird, but they were also clearly stating their action about these videos in particular, not an action against all of them. As I'm sure you can imagine, it is much easier and reliable to pull videos from a particular user than all videos related to a certain subject. If they did that, they'd probably risk also taking down Joe Rogan (which at this point would be awesome, but also a very bad).