35 ms·

YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

• coldtea 5y ago
  Tech giant mega-platforms dictating policy...
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• corndoge 5y ago
  > YouTube indicated that examples of the offending content in the video included the line: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” > It also included the quote: “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” Regardless of what you think about YouTube's misinformation policy, I don't think this is even misinformation! Seeing platforms control the narrative to this extent is truly fascinating. I never thought it would be as overt as it is. Tech companies feeling competent to dictate truth is scary.
  • dtagames 5y ago
    Indeed. Tech companies now silence politicians unilaterally, while governments made up of the same politicians do nothing to stop the widespread flow of toxic misinformation on tech platforms. So, who is really in charge?
    • javajosh 5y ago
      At some point, the adults need to be in charge. I for one applaud YouTube for taking this step, because it's not an easy choice, because they'll get pushback like this. Misinformation about Covid is deadly. Rand Paul is spreading misinformation - masks stop the spread of everything because it prevents bodily fluid particles from getting on everything, and also stops people from touching their face. Both of these are key vectors for disease to spread. If corporations are to be treated as people, then it's good that they behave as if they have a conscience, and show an unwillingness to sacrifice real people on the alter of libertarian free-speech political correctness. If I worked at YouTube I would be proud of their stance.
      • mimixco 5y ago
        Lots of misinformation on YouTube is bad for people and isn't stopped. And I would hardly call Google, YouTube's owners, a "company with a conscience" since nearly their entire business is based on predatory surveillance advertising. In a democratic society, the elected leaders need to communicate their ideas, however wrongheaded. If they aren't allowed to communicate, how do they reach their electors and how do they tell potential voters they're right (or wrong)? When you are at the platform level like YouTube, you have a responsibility to carry information from the government even if you don't like it because you didn't elect Ron Paul, his constituents did.
        • javajosh 5y ago
          YouTube is NOT the government. If Rand Paul was arrested for his speech, that would be a violation of his First Amendment rights and wrong. The right to speak does not compel a private platform to carry that speech. Certainly Fox News gives RP and his ilk plenty of opportunity to spread their harmful propaganda. So it's not like, even in a practical sense, his ability to express himself has been curtailed.
          • lp0_on_fire 5y ago
            > Certainly Fox News gives RP and his ilk Tell us how you really feel about people on the right. Something tells me you'd be singing a different story if it were someone you agreed with.
          • treeman79 5y ago
            Lincoln was not even on the ballet In several states. That lead to a civil war.s We are reaching/past the point where open speech is no longer allowed. That makes next steps scary.
            • rat87 5y ago
              YouTube doing the right thing and banning some stupid misinformation is nowhere near civil war.
    • dantheman 5y ago
      You have no right to use someone else's printing press. The government can easily create their own video hosting platform. Just like the NYTimes doesn't need to allow any politician to submit an oped.
      • mimixco 5y ago
        We've lost the essence of journalism. Instead of a venue where multiple options are presented for review by the reader (along with editorial comment, of course), we now have platforms which are nothing but editorial. Not only individual people but individual comments are called out for censorship. This is not how news reporting was done in the past. It's sad because today, there isn't a single website where a curious individual can review all of the views on a subject (or all of the comments of opposing politicians, for examples) without the platform weighting or simply removing views it doesn't like. This is a loss of objective information and is detrimental to education and intellectual and social advancement. Instead of journalism, each "platform" now picks and chooses stories and voices that amplify its overlords' goals and nothing more. There is no truth to be delivered, only "my" truth as seen by my platform owners. It's a sad day.
        • shadowgovt 5y ago
          In my lifetime, we never had the essence of journalism as you're describing it. Even before the internet, my hometown had the left-leaning and right-leaning newspaper (and I was lucky enough to live in a town that offered both!).
        • selimthegrim 5y ago
          What do you think journalism was like in Zenger's time?
    • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      The tech companies may be trying to "control the problem" so that the government doesn't decide to legislate. Unfortunately for the tech companies, they're doing it so badly, so randomly, that they're probably making legislation more likely.
  • vntok 5y ago
    The masks aren't there to prevent infection, they are there to limit transmission. They work just fine for this objective, which is why the video was indeed spreading misinformation.
  • thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > Seeing platforms control the narrative to this extent is truly fascinating. I never thought it would be as overt as it is. Remember the Hunter Biden's laptop story?
    • 1MachineElf 5y ago
      Add to that, remember when a president was impeached over a "conspiracy theory" regarding Hunter Biden's time at Burisma? One year later, fact checkers had to admit that the FBI was indeed investigating him. Edit: From +5 points to -1 in one hour - I didn't realize so many Burisma employees read HN!
      • MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        It's fun to pretend and play make believe, but that's not why he was impeached.
        • leereeves 5y ago
          >> Add to that, remember when a president was impeached over a "conspiracy theory" regarding Hunter Biden's time at Burisma? One year later, fact checkers had to admit that the FBI was indeed investigating him. > that's not why he was impeached. Yes, it was. The charge was "abuse of power" because the Democrats claimed that Trump had improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate whether Joe Biden had influenced Burisma to hire or to overpay his son, which is the "conspiracy theory" GP referred to.
      • rootsudo 5y ago
        And at that point, the damage was done - the first expose was to discredit, eliminate and silence. And it works.
    • MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      You mean the one where Rudy Giuliani sat in front of a camera with a "Macbook" purported to be Hunter Biden's even though it was an LG and ole Rudy just wasn't smart enough to know the difference?
  • contravariant 5y ago
    I would ideally like a little more justification for those statements, but right now it's not even possible to check if the video had any.
  • fighterpilot 5y ago
    They don't work? This article is claiming otherwise: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
    • spiderice 5y ago
      So what? It's easy to find a million articles that say whatever you need them to say. The point is that Youtube has decided which articles are "right" and "wrong", when they have no business deciding such things.
      • fighterpilot 5y ago
        My comment has nothing to do with whether Youtube should have the power to do what they've done. It has to do with the assertion in the GP that it's not misinformation to say unequivocally that cloth masks don't work. That appears to be nonsense since there's a handful of studies that at the very least leave open that question. Have a look at Fig 3.A from this study: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083
      • underseacables 5y ago
        Therefore they should lose sec 230 protections.
        • b0sk 5y ago
          Losing sec 230 protections would mean more ban-hammer for lying politicians (about elections, vaccines etc.)
          • lp0_on_fire 5y ago
            I'm fine with that. It would create an even playing field in theory and that's a hell of a lot better than what we have right now which is some politicans getting to lie with impunity and others having their content removed for wrongthink.
  • makomk 5y ago
    Yeah, it really doesn't seem all that plausible that cloth masks do much at this point. Not only was there never good evidence for them working, the best ones only block something like 90% of virus-bearing particles. To put this in context current estimates seem to be that people infected with Delta produce 100-1000x the amount of virus that previous variants did; the effect of mask wearing is absolutely miniscule compared to that.
    • ALittleLight 5y ago
      How is blocking X% of the virus particles less impactful if there's more of them? Fewer particles admitted means reduced chance of infection, no? Always better to less virus particles than more.
      • Veen 5y ago
        But almost no one is wearing the best sort of mask. They're wearing porous cloth masks that stop next to nothing.
        • kube-system 5y ago
          > next to nothing. Not true. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
          • Veen 5y ago
            Are cloth masks any good? CDC says yes. BMJ says maybe, if you get the right masks. France says no and you should be wearing medical masks. DANMASK-19 says less than 50% effective and no significant difference in infections among populations who wear and don't wear masks. Who's a fellow to believe? - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n432 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n432
      • chlodwig 5y ago
        Fewer particles admitted means reduced chance of infection, no? The thing to keep in mind is that blocking 50% of the particles does not mean a 50% reduction in infection. It may mean a 50% reduction in infection -- or it may mean a basically zero percent reduction. It depends on the exposure. Say that in a particular covid-filled room you have a 50% chance of being infected after 5 minutes and a 99.9% chance of being infected after an hour. Under a simple model, if you wear a mask that blocks half the particles, your chance of getting coronavirus in 5 minutes would be reduced to 25%, but your chance of getting it after an hour would be 97%. So if cloth mask is your primary defense against covid, you are eventually going to get covid if you are trying to live anything close to a normal life. Blocking 50% of particles is like wearing an condom that only blocks 50% of the sperm or an umbrella that blocks only 50% of the rain.
  • swashboon 5y ago
    Except they are effective. They are not as effective as a N95 mask but all scientific data shows they are still effective and reducing transmission rate in a population.
    • danhak 5y ago
      Why haven't we seen significantly better outcomes in states with mask mandates vs. those without?
      • jacquesm 5y ago
        That's not how this works. You can only compare with the future that wasn't. People may decide all by themselves that wearing a mask is a good idea, mandate or not, and then there is the point that not all masks are created equal, which is the subject of this thread.
        • danhak 5y ago
          Is your argument that outcomes of different policy decisions cannot be compared across different jurisdictions?
          • jacquesm 5y ago
            Not without carefully controlling for all kinds of variables, demographics, geography, internal and external connectivity and so on. No two areas are closely alike in all those respects.
            • danhak 5y ago
              Do you similarly feel that comparisons across different populations are invalid for arguing the affirmative? e.g. arguments like "we should try masking / UBI / $15 minimum wage / free healthcare / universal pre-k because it worked well in ${location}" are also "not how this works" because we can "only compare with the future that wasn't?" Do such arguments need to control for the infinite number of confounding variables before having any value?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • cvwright 5y ago
    My wife and I were looking into traveling from the US to Europe this summer, if the borders had opened up earlier. At the time, Germany was not allowing cloth masks on public transport. N95, surgical masks, or stay home. So here we have a sitting US senator being censored for agreeing with the German health authorities. WTF?!?
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • kube-system 5y ago
      If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.
      • ryandrake 5y ago
        The phrases "doesn't work" and "doesn't prevent" have become staples of the COVID disinformation toolkit. Anything that is not exactly 100% effective transforms into "doesn't work" in the narrative. Educated experts will never say something is 100% effective, so this is always an easy way for detractors to "prove" that the experts agree XYZ doesn't work. EDIT: Other examples: Some people have gotten pregnant while on birth control, therefore birth control "doesn't work". Some people wearing seat belts still die in car crashes, therefore seat belts "don't work". This is a tried and true misinformation tactic.
        • dublin 5y ago
          Even the pores in an N95 mask are not small enough to prevent viral transmission, so the actual science says your magic mask talisman is voodoo bullshit. People are even starting to do their own tests to show the impact of mask mandates on children, who have never been at significant risk from this virus, anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5E5BUrII4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul5E5BUrII4
  • craftinator 5y ago
    > I don't think this is even misinformation! Having watched the original, I would say there is a mixture of truth, twisted truth, speculation, and complete misinformation (which is basically what we should expect from any politician). While it's clear that the messaging he was sending was BAD for people's health, because anything diverting airflow between a sick person and a healthy person helps the healthy person not become a sick person, I truly dislike the censorship being enacted.
  • rsba 5y ago
    I read one study that indicated an N95/KN95 mask was 10 times more effective than the regular (non) medical masks. I always thought it was unusual that the US government just didn’t mail KN95 masks to people, or widely distribute them at cost. And encourage their use. If something is 10 times less effective, it’s basically not even effective in comparison to what’s possible.
    • Covzire 5y ago
      N95's for daily long-term use just isn't feasible. I've had a bunch of them from long before COVID19 for working with some auto detailing chemicals and I can't wear one for more than 10 minutes. Breathing becomes extremely difficult, maybe it would get better with time but it gets to a point where I constantly feel like I'm about to pass out.
      • fouc 5y ago
        There are new ones made with nanofiber instead of the typical ones made of meltblown fiber. The nanofiber ones are more breathable, check out AirQueens, rated kn95.
      • greedo 5y ago
        Isn't it amazing that medical professionals can work 12 hour shifts in N95s without having difficulty breathing and don't feel like they're going to pass out?
      • fernandotakai 5y ago
        i've been wearing n95 masks for almost two years now and i had no issues with them. i can even workout with an n100 without any problems.
    • aisengard 5y ago
      The USPS had a plan in place to do just that. The Trump White House stopped it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/09/18/usps-covid-19-coronavirus-plan-to-send-every-household-face-masks-how-the-white-house-stopped-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/09/18/usps-covid-... Could argue the Trump administration is directly responsible for killing tens of thousands of Americans through that act alone.
  • 34679 5y ago
    I have to wonder if the people who made this decision even have a medical degree. Software engineers banning doctors for making medical statements seems wrong.
  • rvz 5y ago
    > I never thought it would be as overt as it is. It has been known that they have been doing this randomly to multiple accounts every day and it is clear that YouTube will never change. They will point you to their guidelines and suspend your account at anytime. > Tech companies feeling competent to dictate truth is scary. These tech companies are not your friends and are on no-one's side other than the side of profit. They can get anyone and use their slippery guidelines as cover for their suspensions. They are never going to change and it's only going to get worse.
  • VelkaMorava 5y ago
    In before "If Rand Paul doesn't like it, he can create his own platform." Next step is banning video for any usage of "he" or "she", because only monsters assume someone's gender. edit: as my ego is bruised from the downvotes here, I'll quote Sir William Sidney when he was imprisoned by Napoleon: "Fortune's wheel makes strange revolutions, it must be confessed; but for the term revolution to be applicable, the turn of the wheel must be complete. You are today as high as you can be. Very well. I envy not your good fortune, for mine is better still. I am as low in the career of ambition as a man can well descend; so that, let this capricious dame, fortune, turn her wheel ever so little--I must necessarily mount, for the same reason you must descend." So, people clapping blatant this censorship, don't be surprised when future Trump-like figure takes the lead and uses the same tools for censoring your own side. I hope you will at least have the integrity to say "fair enough".
  • treeman79 5y ago
    Is the point to stop misinformation, or to silence people.
  • NonContro 5y ago
    How much of this is about 'masks' and really about Rand Paul calling for mass civil disobedience against COVID restrictions? Here's the full video: https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1424399282447298563 https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1424399282447298563
    • natural219 5y ago
      mass civil disobedience against COVID restrictions is not only awesome, it a very explicit and central civic value of the American political mythology. I can't emphasize enough how bizarre and soviet-esque that this is even on the table as a contentious issue these days.
      • kingTug 5y ago
        Probably has something to do with the 600k+ dead Americans.
        • NonContro 5y ago
          Not much evidence that any of these interventions would have prevented that: https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/state-vs-state https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/state-vs-state The major underlying factor behind the deaths (apart from just old age) is obesity, secondly probably air pollution, but these factors are ignored.
        • __blockcipher__ 5y ago
          Every year, ~647,000 Americans die from heart disease alone. Even if the COVID death numbers aren't over-inflated, I guarantee you that if I were to time-travel to 2019 and ask you if you think that it would be worth precipitating a global supply chain disruption, missed schooling and medical appointments for children around the globe, both first and third world, and the greatest erosion in civil liberties in Western society since at least WW2 (since we've already eclipsed 9/11 in loss of liberty, shockingly)...all over 4 million and change deaths globally, you would think that was crazy
  • mbesto 5y ago
    > Tech companies feeling competent to dictate truth is scary. What's scarier, the fact that tech companies feel competent to dictate truth or the fact that we let them?
    • Ygg2 5y ago
      Let them? First rule of internet is don't trust things on the Internet. Cross reference and double check. Everyone makes mistakes or lies.
      • iammisc 5y ago
        How can you cross reference and double check if only one side is presented and the internet is the main means by which one double checks? This is the conundrum I haven't figured out.
        • wizzwizz4 5y ago
          Go to the library. (Hopefully you still have one.)
          • iammisc 5y ago
            No the democrats shut mine down and are taxing us for them anyway
            • wizzwizz4 5y ago
              Can you write to your local representative?
              • iammisc 5y ago
                After several calls with my Oregon house representative, she no longer responds to my e-mails or calls. Can't contact her via social media because I've been blocked there. I've thought about going to her office but those are closed down too. Of course, if you just block constituents you can just ... do nothing and in Oregon, you'll be re-elected because there's a big D next to your name. Of course, there's also no non-D candidate running, because it's a one party state. I imagine this is what it must be like to vote in North Korea. Oregon law mandates that one must run under the purview of a political party. Forming a party requires a large set of requirements that means only the democrats can run in many places because there's simply not enough of an opposition to form a cohesive opposition. This prevents independent candidates from running. There is no incentive for my representatives to change the status quo. Eventually, I'm guessing I'll vote with my feet, but I don't understand why I should have to move to an area in which the GOP runs unopposed in order to experience the 'other' side. I mean... it's not like the GOP is perfect and a uni-party GOP jurisdiction would be much better. What I want is actual politics with people competing for my vote, instead of people who assume they'll get it.
  • phendrenad2 5y ago
    Except it is literally misinformation. "Most of the masks you get over the counter" ARE at least somewhat effective.
  • Bud 5y ago
    This is unquestionably misinformation, and Rand Paul needs to have a permanent muzzle installed until covid is extinct. Masks DO WORK. Yes, N95s work better than cloth masks, usually, but cloth masks work very well for reducing the likelihood that a covid-positive person will transmit the virus. This isn't controversial. Rand Paul needs to stop spreading lies on purpose, and if he won't, I fully support YouTube telling him that he can use someone else's platform to do so. This is NOT an example of "tech companies dictating truth". And it's not scary, either. What's scary is the results of letting charlatans like "Rand" Paul speak on this in public.
    • superkuh 5y ago
      An unfit mask with anything more than a single centimeter^2 aperture gap is effectively <N40. That means more aerosol particles are let out/in than are blocked. Unfit masks do a pretty terrible job but they do help a little bit. What doesn't help is censoring people pointing out this nuance. What we need is N95/ffp2 mask mandates for indoors. That would really help mitigate sars-cov-2 spread. Now, unfit masks do do something. They block the spittle for sure and less than half the aerosols. But if you look at how influenza stopped spreading almost completely the last year and a half you have to conclude that either unfit masks with gaps do help significantly versus respiratory viruses, or, sampling for influenza cases has been borked due to the overloading need to test for sars-cov-2. It's probably the former.
      • rwcarlsen 5y ago
        Decreased influenza was influenced by loads of changes - not just masks. Various social distancing measures, schools closing, travel being restricted, etc. I don't think you can conclude anything empirically about influenza and masks without controlling for this dearth of other variables.
      • __blockcipher__ 5y ago
        > But if you look at how influenza stopped spreading almost completely the last year and a half you have to conclude that either unfit masks with gaps do help significantly versus respiratory viruses, or, sampling for influenza cases has been borked due to the overloading need to test for sars-cov-2. I think it's three effects: (1) Acute infection with respiratory virus X is protective against respiratory virus Y. This is because of the cellular interferon response (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/778995/); https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/778995/); basically the non-specific component of the immune system gets "revved up" and thus subsequent pathogens don't stand a chance. This might be further accentuated by the fact that SARS-2 specifically can acutely downregulate interferon response (see https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.16.252973v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.16.252973v1), presumably to suppress the immune response against it, which would/could lead to a rebound upregulation in interferon after the initial phase of SARS-2-mediated interferon suppression (2) Some people who actually had Influenza would have tested for COVID first, and been PCR positive because the PCR tests in the real world can stay positive for a couple months after resolution of the infection (due to the absurdly high cycle threshold that is often used). This is what you said, I'm just elaborating a bit more on how it actually happens (3) Influenza spreads less easily than SARS-2, so it's possible the NPIs had some effect. This is my least favorite theory because the NPIs were so poor against SARS-2 and measures like school closures haven't been shown to reduce Influenza. My guess is stuff like people avoiding family members during 2020 holidays etc did decrease the connections between social nodes a bit, so there was some effect but not a huge one from the altered behavior
  • zR0x 5y ago
    He’s just polluting the airwaves to keep his voters wound up. A single layer of cloth doesn’t stop it. There’s a reason why those scarfs aren’t allowed in airplanes (well they say that, still see them in use). But it can help reduce the distance it travels. It’s semantic wank, which is all politicians are good at.
  • IIAOPSW 5y ago
    It is misinformation. Masks (cloth or otherwise) were meant to reduce infectiousness, not completely prevent the possibility of infection. Masks (cloth or otherwise) do in fact reduce infectiousness. The misinformation is the implication that masks are pointless because you can still get infected. The point of masks is to get the probability of spreading it down by some multiple, not to be a personal not-my-problem-anymore pass. This is like saying seat belts don't work because you can still die in a crash.
    • convery 5y ago
      His comment was on masks reducing the risk of you getting infected, not infecting others. Which is a selfish point, but nonetheless a correct one.
      • rhizome 5y ago
        The masks work, but he only mentions a narrow use that isn't the current reason for wearing them. That's the misinformation; he got you, too. Think of it this way: "Don't wear a seatbelt because they don't keep other cars from hitting you."
        • kevinpet 5y ago
          Ah, I see, you're using "misinformation" to mean "came to a different conclusion than I did".
          • reubens 5y ago
            Misinformation, because it encourages a practice that is counter to the recommendations. Because it allows for a conclusion to be drawn that is counter to the recommendations.
          • slothtrop 5y ago
            No, it's bait and switch.
          • rhizome 5y ago
  • WalterBright 5y ago
    > Tech companies feeling competent to dictate truth is scary. The government has been telling them to censor or else.
  • suyash 5y ago
    Totally agree, YouTube is in the wrong here. They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts and allow 'real free speech' in online platforms.
    • bcrosby95 5y ago
      So 'real free speech' is about requiring private companies to carry the message of a politically powerful agent of the government?
      • suyash 5y ago
        that's your definition, for me it is allowing anyone to speak their views without putting a "extreme left" sensor and calling it fake.
        • ta2987 5y ago
          Do you think that I should be able to compel you, personally, to say something?
        • cwkoss 5y ago
          lol. the idea that masks reduce infection rates is not leftist.
          • Rapzid 5y ago
            That's exactly what a leftist would say.
        • nielsbot 5y ago
          view ≠ facts. "extreme left" ≠ untrue.
      • lupire 5y ago
        s/politically powerful agent of the government/person/ , yes.
  • rat87 5y ago
    No what is scarier is that a Senator who's also a doctor would be putting out such dangerous misinformation about the pandemic. I used to respect Senator Paul before the Trump era but he's gone over the deep end. YouTube did the right thing here
  • sp332 5y ago
    The article links to YouTube's copyright strikes policy, but the relevant one is this: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en Content moderation is the default, expected behavior of any host. Unmoderated places turn into shitholes like 4chan that no one wants to visit, or used to coordinate violence like when Facebook wasn't moderating content in the Burmese language. If someone posts something to my computer that I don't want there for any reason, including conscience, I will delete it. That's not controversial at all really.
  • boredumb 5y ago
    fascinating is the nicest way I can imagine this being put.
  • bamboozled 5y ago
    I think (I hope) it’s a side effect of the legal system pushing them to do this. These platforms are now basically the Internet. If they don’t police misinformation, maybe they’re worried the government will come after them ? Maybe people who care about hosting alternative views should host their own websites? Like how the Internet was designed ?
  • throwaway5752 5y ago
    They don't dictate truth and their job is not to spread truth. There job is to make money, and letting the loudest fringe people drive off lucrative sane people is against their best interests. Nobody has a first amendment right to have a WSJ OpEd column or a Youtube account. There are platforms that allow you to say anything as a policy, like 8chan, and they are cesspools because of it. Rand Paul can use one of those. Sociopathic liars love attention and are great at manipulating systems in ways to generate sympathy.
    • throwaway5752 5y ago
      To downvoters, I'm curious who should force a platform what content they should be compelled to carry. Government? Should YouTube be compelled to carry anything permitted by law? They don't allow pornography, graphic violence, or hate speech. Should they be forced to carry those? What freedom does YouTube have to decide what sort of platform they have? Allowing them to suspend people at their discretion is far better than the alternative.
  • lhorie 5y ago
    This thread feels like a game of broken telephone: you're literally quoting a quote of a quote. Rand Paul's overall stance is basically "let's revolt against masks because freedom". Whether Rand Paul's carefully cherrypicked arguments are technically medically/factually correct doesn't really matter, you need to consider the narrative as a whole. Youtube deemed that promoting his overall message is a threat to public health, regardless of whether he made factually correct statements or not. It strikes me as unfortunate that the rationale Youtube gave tried to add legitimacy to their decision by quoting Rand Paul as "evidence" for their case (under the presupposition that a "bad" position must necessarily be supported by factually incorrect arguments), when they could just have said that his anti-mask position goes against CDC guidelines or something along those lines that is easier for a non-expert to verify. If anything the lesson here is for Youtube to be careful of snake talk that employs half truths as weapons. In other words, if they are not experts enough to determine whether specific quotes are factually true, then don't base decisions on your ability to determine accuracy, and instead defer to the language of the official guidelines.
    • kcplate 5y ago
      You realize you are advocating thought policing here, right?
      • lhorie 5y ago
        I'm not advocating for anything though? I didn't even claim to agree w/ Youtube in the first place. I merely said that the way they went about this specific case could've been far less controversial if they deferred explaining rationales to the proper health authority rather than taking it upon themselves to decide what "evidence" is factually correct. Besides, thought, speech, broadcasting and individual rights on private and public spaces are all very different things. At the end of the day, Youtube's platform is their own turf and they ultimately have the physical power to take down whatever the heck they want. Twitter, Facebook and self-hosted wordpress instances all exist as alternatives for Rand Paul, and he'll certainly be back on YT with his same agenda next week. Countries can (and do) hit Youtube with whatever fines they think are appropriate. Rand Paul's constituents will be Rand Paul's constituents. Every party in this saga is basically just doing whatever they want. Where does thought policing fit into any of this?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • uwagar 5y ago
    your use of the word fascinating is fascinating. sounds like you self censored.
  • hnrj95 5y ago
    people seem to forget that paul is a board certified surgeon (not just a canonical politician), and his post cited 2 peer reviewed articles that ostensibly passed muster. i don’t have expertise on the science, here, but people are making it out to seem that he’s some nut job science denier. i don’t think that narrative is fair
• throwawaysea 5y ago
  Banning select politicians on the digital public town square is the same as making a campaign donation to other politicians, except without appropriate controls on the funding.
• endisneigh 5y ago
  So if Rand Paul is democratically elected and YouTube silences him, then in effect YouTube is silencing the population that elected Rand Paul. Furthermore (I can't see the video) - if he did indeed simply quote two peer-reviewed papers is it right to suspend him? As an exercise, which of the following statements are correct: 1. Gaiter masks will stop you from getting COVID-19 2. Surgical masks will stop you from getting COVID-19 3. KN95 masks will stop you from getting COVID-19 4. N95 masks will stop you from getting COVID-19?
  • eplanit 5y ago
    Yes. With this, they're already doing that to his constituents in Kentucky.
  • vntok 5y ago
    He did not. Watch it.
  • aweiland 5y ago
    Totally silenced. A ban from YouTube comes with a ban from Fox News, NewsMax, Twitter, Facebook, newspapers, local TV stations... /s
    • endisneigh 5y ago
      Who said anything about being totally silenced? Are you arguing that being banned from YouTube isn't the same as being silenced to some extent?
      • _-david-_ 5y ago
        >Who said anything about being totally silenced? The White House believes you should be banned from all social media not just one if you spread misinformation. Maybe that is not totally silenced, but it is getting close to it. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/16/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-july-16-2021/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  What's next, like, spank them? I really don't get why YouTube is not treated like all TV stations
• mensetmanusman 5y ago
  ‘masks’ is about as vague as ‘food’ There are good and bad masks, just as there is good and bad food. A cloth mask will not protect you against an aerosol (note: am a researcher who has seen the electron microscopy images proving this), that is why N95s are mandated with no beards in any ISO work environment where you are subjected to aerosol risk. The inability of public dialog on this nuance is just a reflection of our poor scientific education.
  • gibba999 5y ago
    What's really problematic is authentic, substantially N95-equivalent masks are now: - Available - Cheap - Plentiful - Comfortable Without a conversation, it's impossible to get people to wear them. As a footnote, COVID19 spreads through both large droplets and aerosol, and infection is highly dependent on initial viral load. Eliminating large droplets is helpful, especially on the way out.
    • dfxm12 5y ago
      especially on the way out This doesn't matter to Paul. Him, and most of his colleagues/voters, etc. base their ideals on individualism. To them, pro-social behavior, like wearing a mask to protect others, is inconceivable.
      • seanclayton 5y ago
        individualism is not selfishness.
        • gibba999 5y ago
          Indeed it's not. ... and ironically, the liberals are far more individualistic, and conservatives, collectivist, at least as anthropologists use the term. A big part of the rationale for limited government is family and church support support networks.
  • ecshafer 5y ago
    So you agree with him, as he is saying specifically that not all masks offer protection, and that cloth masks don't.
• gibba999 5y ago
  This seems exceptionally problematic. I absolutely think everyone should use masks, but the science is clearly not in on the effectiveness of cloth masks. It's a valid area of discussion. My own opinion is that everyone should use N95-equivalent masks, but others are entitled to their opinions too. We have democratic and civic processes to decide what should be mandated, what should be recommended, what should be discouraged, and what should be banned. Prerequisite to those is honest discussion. What's more problematic is this doesn't even work. A good civic discussion convinces people. Simply shutting people up convinces no one.
  • BurningFrog 5y ago
    > Simply shutting people up convinces no one I mean, effectively shutting up one side of a discussion will surely convince most people to agree with the side being heard. This just isn't effective (yet?).
    • gibba999 5y ago
      No. It doesn't. We try this over and over. Racism is an even bigger example. You go from public views to closeted views. Closeted views are usually more harmful. I've been in openly racist environments and in ones with closet racism. Open racists are sometimes easy to ignore, often easy to circumvent, and in some cases, possible to convince. Closeted racists are much more subversive. You can see the same effects in countries with totalitarian religious regimes, where the religion comes off behind closed doors. People pretending to follow public health measures when they know they're being watched is a worst-case scenario -- at that point, you can't even do studies on what works.
    • syshum 5y ago
      It is not, it is creating platform echo chambers. The video is not taken offline, it was just taken off YT. So you end up with silo's of information where different groups of people have a different reality, which IMO is even more dangerous than misinformation, because it makes it harder to see alternate opinions if all your info is silo'ed
  • matz1 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• haunter 5y ago
  Most of the food you get in McDonalds is very healthy. They allow you to have a healthy diet.
• gumby 5y ago
  There are plenty of ways to hear someone's message, especially someone famous. I have to wonder if RP specifically experimented to get this to happen so he could get the extra publicity and victim credibility. A friend recently posted a YouTube video on FB. It was someone complaining that their voice was being "silenced" so that nobody could learn what the complainer had to say. And BTW (at front and end of the diatribe, as well as in the text under the video) "instead you should visit my web site at XXX which has all my videos and articles." The clown may have encountered some resistance to posting some videos on YouTube but has no problem getting their message out for anyone who wanted it. The victim card was used to drive traffic to their own web site.
• paulpauper 5y ago
  Forthcoming story: rand Paul suspended from Twitter for crticizing youtube suspension on mask misinformation
  • treeman79 5y ago
    Does he have anything hosted on Amazon? They won’t want to miss out. Heck maybe DNS registers can start banning people.
    • xanaxagoras 5y ago
      I used to love AWS, now I'm ashamed that I use it professionally.
• mark_l_watson 5y ago
  Yeah, this is screwed-up. I have been vaccinated, and I always still wear a mask when shopping or otherwise indoors. But, I don't have the right to tell other people what to do, and YouTube does not have the right to "cancel" an elected senator who is both a doctor and has had covid-19. I think that the Senator is probably wrong about masks, but I support his right to speak his mind. Corporations that own public forums like YouTube, Facebook, etc. don't get what I would normally consider property rights here - they control public commons and I think that there should be strong government over site that does not allow censoring opinions.
  • dantheman 5y ago
    Youtube most definitely has the right to determine what they're going to show on their platform. You may not agree with their choices, but it's their right. It is easy and cheap to host videos online that can be easily linked to and viewed by anyone.
    • Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      When this all turns around on you (and history says it will because it always does), remember you asked for your voice and the voice of those with similar views to yours to be silenced. Don't expect those whose voices you cheered to be muffled to come to your rescue. Yelling hypocrite won't save you. It's guaranteed to happen. There's no if here, only a when.
      • dantheman 5y ago
        I'm not asking for any voice to be silenced, and I strongly disagree with youtube's censorship - but I acknowledge it's their right to do it. We can criticize them all we want, build alternates, boycott them, etc.
    • Thorentis 5y ago
      Welcome to another installment of "but they're a private company". Who decides what rights private companies have? Do private companies have a right to dump waste into rivers? What about to fire employees because of their race? The rights of private companies are not transcendental - we define them. And if we decide as a society that deleting information from publishing platforms goes against the common good, then we can do that.
• vlovich123 5y ago
  Took a bit of searching to find Paul’s statement where he claims to have support from studies. Does anyone know which studies these are? > A Danish study of 6000 participants found that wearing a surgical mask did not significantly reduce a person's risk of COVID-19 infection, compared to the risks facing those who did not wear masks. > And a Vietnamese study of 1600 participants found that cloth masks allow for 97% penetration of particles. This study also found that cloth mask wearers had a higher rate of infection than the control group who wore no masks. What’s interesting is this (intentional or otherwise) game being played with terminology. Mask proponents are arguing cloth masks reduce the R0 of the virus and less so about your own personal risk. Mask opponents seem to be saying “but it doesn’t change your own personal chances of infection” which may be true but is a weird way to look at controlling a pandemic. It’s also weird to me that some studies would conclude that cloth masks have a negative impact on your personal infection. Is the theory that coronavirus particles somehow just get trapped in the cloth?
  • MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    There is a portion of the population who believes that if you've already been infected, then having a mask over your face just causes you to reinfect yourself over and over again.
    • sethammons 5y ago
      Not sure why you were downvoted. I know people who hold that view.
  • rootsudo 5y ago
    There is no game, this is normal standard information not being understood. Information asymmetry. 1. Everyone assumes they have the same level of understanding as themselves. 2. Everyone assumes some protection is better than no protection - while this makes sense on paper, it also can encourage more social behavior, which then increases risk of infection. 3. Cloth masks do absorb, and can retain liquid which means it could increase rate of infection assuming the mask is not cleaned daily or replaced. I'm pro mask, simply because it hides my face and in this world that was something outside of Asia I would get double/triple looks for.
• imnotreallynew 5y ago
  What I find particularly funny about the mask conversation is that if you remember way back to March-July 2020, if you tried to buy a box of surgical face masks on Amazon, there was a large, bold warning in the top description that said “does not prevent the spread of viruses”. The reason for this was the FDA, which regulates masks, clearly held the position that face masks were for preventing transmission of large droplets and saliva, NOT aerosols. Those bold warnings went away when the narrative changed and the FDA issued an EUA that meant sellers no longer needed that disclaimer.
  • Someone1234 5y ago
    So your point is that a federal agency got more data and updated its guidance inline with that data? That's what they're meant to do...
    • fighterpilot 5y ago
      Their point is that the official stance can easily be wrong, which calls into question whether it's a good idea to silence people who are questioning it, which is what many were doing on social media in early 2020 when the official stance was that masks don't work.
      • Barrin92 5y ago
        depends entirely on how someone is 'questioning' something. Merely contradicting existing public health guidelines with misinformation or speculation provides no actual meaningful further input. as per the article, youtube's policy is: "and we make exceptions for videos that have additional context such as countervailing views from local health authorities". So presumably if your contradicting opinion is actually substantiated you're not getting the banhammer, which seems fair to me. But letting people rant against public health guidelines which exist to prevent harm (even if to some degree uncertain) without actually justifying their case is irresponsible.
• h2odragon 5y ago
  https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2021/08/covid-incompetence.html https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2021/08/covid-incompetenc... Say many things worth reading, but of masks specifically: > Masks do much more to stop you from giving it to someone else than to protect you. Cloth masks are close to useless. Well-fitting N95 masks work much better in both directions. Neither comes close to vaccination. Wearing cloth masks outdoors, far from other people, in the wind, as is the fashion in Palo Alto, is just part and parcel of the pointless virtue-signaling so prominent here. If you do go to that crowded all-night disco, wearing an N95 mask might be a good idea. Of course if you’re even thinking about wearing a mask, you’re not going in the first place, which is why the whole mask-mandate business is a bit silly. Absolutely worth reading the whole thing for the full context. If we're going to have a Ministry of Truth, shouldn't it at least be run by accountable, elected officials? Hasn't history proven pretty well that Ministries of Truth are damaging to society?
• hedgehog 5y ago
  Even poorly fitted cloth masks or a bandana will do a little bit for source control. That's useful to help contain spread, we just need to push the exponent on infection growth below 1.0. COVID's vicious feature is not that it's extraordinarily dangerous on a per-case basis, it's that it spreads so easily and even in people without symptoms. Clearly it would be better if everyone wore N95 quality masks, and that's the level you need to really protect yourself, but if nearly everyone got vaccinated and wore even a mediocre mask we could starve the pandemic out in a month or two.
  • nradov 5y ago
    That's not scientifically correct. Because the vaccines are not fully sterilizing and there are multiple animal host species the virus will never be eradicated regardless of what we do. It's now endemic. You can't expect people to wear masks indefinitely.
    • hedgehog 5y ago
      Ending the pandemic is different from eradicating the virus. It'll likely end up being something we manage just as we manage viruses like measles or Ebola. Vaccination and surveillance will slow the sporadic smaller outbreaks and make it feasible to contain them.
      • nradov 5y ago
        There's no scientific reason to expect that outbreaks of a highly infectious respiratory virus can be contained by measures short of the drastic lockdowns used in authoritarian countries like China and Australia. Most people in most countries won't go along with that, and in many countries the governments don't even have the resources to even try. A more realistic scenario is that we all get infected eventually but vaccines keep the death toll low.
        • hedgehog 5y ago
          I hope you're wrong but unclear. Best I can tell it's likely populations with near-100% vaccination rates and reasonable public health teams will be protected from large outbreaks. That strategy has worked for measles, we'll see what happens on this one.
• dannyz 5y ago
  Obviously nobody wants YouTube to be the arbiter of truth, but this whole situation has just become ridiculous. We have an elected senator spreading misinformation, perhaps willfully, perhaps not. All of the current evidence suggests that even cloth mask wearing reduces the virus spread (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22). A cloth mask may not prevent infection for yourself, but if you are infected it will reduce the risk of transmission for everyone around you. This is why we need mandates.
  • _-david-_ 5y ago
    >Obviously nobody wants YouTube to be the arbiter of truth This is not obvious. Many people are advocating for YouTube to ban what is currently considered misinformation.
    • Covzire 5y ago
      Considered by who? Seasoned medical doctors cannot even have discussions amongst themselves on Youtube if their discussion even touches on a few specific areas. Their "misinformation" policy is INSANE on so many levels and it ensures misinformation will thrive for much longer than it otherwise would if they just let experts have honest and open dialogues. It would be a million times better if they at least allowed Medical doctors to have discussions amongst themselves without their draconian restrictions on what naughty phrases they're not allowed to utter.
      • _-david-_ 5y ago
        I think you misunderstood what I am saying. I agree with you, but was trying to make a point that some people do in fact want YouTube to be the arbiter of truth. I do not want that.
        • Covzire 5y ago
          I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that Youtube's idea of what should be censored is not as settled as basic first grade math is, yet they act like A) it is and B) they are teachers and their users are first graders and it's their job to ensure only the right answers are taught.
• evgeniysharapov 5y ago
  One can look at it as what's the null hypothesis. Presumably it should be "masks DO NOT work". But for whatever reason, media, tech, politicians, doctors chose opposite as a null hypothesis - "Masks DO work" shifting the burden of proof. Neither has been proven though. There were studies, e.g. DENMARK-19, etc. but after this became a political and ideological issue it seems no one interested to find the truth to the question "do masks work in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses". Notice that there's also question - what does it mean "work", let's say it reduces number of viral particles but that reduction has little effect on transmission, it should mean it doesn't work.
• adamrezich 5y ago
  looks like most of the comments here are debating whether Rand Paul is correct or incorrect, which is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand here.
• kthejoker2 5y ago
  Seems like YouTube is missing some kind of middle ground "this thing is controversial, and definitely one-sided, and therefore probably misleading" attachment that doesn't require strikes / account suspensions. I appreciate the Senator attaching links, but there are plenty of counterpoints of evidence: I think merely presenting one side of the evidence is itself a sign of bad faith.
• Thorentis 5y ago
  The cloth masks we were given at my workplace to wear in the office included an information slip in the packaging that included amongst cleaning instructions: "This is not a virus proof mask". Would I get banned from YouTube for reading out this verbatim?
  • digianarchist 5y ago
    Virus proof and ineffective are not the same thing.
  • gunapologist99 5y ago
    Only if you did that as a senator and physician from the other party.
• cblconfederate 5y ago
  Youtube likes to push its own agenda about masks or whatever , yet it's still under protection as an online platform , article 230 and all? Why are they not legally liable while literally every other agenda-pushing medium is? Why havent the other mainstream media taken this to court yet?
  • shadowgovt 5y ago
    > Why havent the other mainstream media taken this to court yet? Standing, for starters. "My neighbor hasn't been busted by the cops for his huge marijuana operation" isn't actually something you can sue your neighbor over. They'd have to harm you directly, somehow. Similarly, "My competitor in this industry isn't being held to a standard I'm being held to" isn't something you can sue over. Rand Paul might, might have standing to bring such a lawsuit. Maybe.
• goatherders 5y ago
  Good. He's a clown.
  • rubyist5eva 5y ago
    How does Joe Biden's boot taste.
    • goatherders 5y ago
      I don't know, I'm too busy winning at life to care.
      • rubyist5eva 5y ago
        Sure you are, cope.
        • goatherders 5y ago
          You the one who emailed me telling me to kill myself? Lol. You first, virgin.
          • rubyist5eva 5y ago
            nah - but I think it's funny that someone else would lmao. Wouldn't be suprised if you're just saying this hoping it gets my account banned. Virgin? Got a wife and kids...not sure how I could do that being a virgin, but nice attempt - probably projection. Keep seething.
            • dang 5y ago
              If you post like this to HN again we will ban you. Not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
          • dang 5y ago
            If you post like this to HN again we will ban you. Not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• whiddershins 5y ago
  What's really funny is nobody knows if cloth masks work, but lots of people are commenting here as if this is the debate. The best I can steelman YouTube's position would be: "Yes we need free speech in order to debate all the things and get ever closer to truth. YouTube does not want to host this debate. Please find an alternate venue, and if the consensus changes, we will dutifully update our policies to reflect that."
  • idonotknowwhy 5y ago
    Any mask works because it reminds you not to touch your face
    • rwcarlsen 5y ago
      Anecdotally, I frequently observe masks causing people to touch their faces more. Masks cause itches, need to be adjusted, must be removed for drinking/eating, etc. I would be very interested in large-scale empirical studies measuring how effective masks are in practice. Sure in theory they can help. But I suspect in practice with the general public in everyday life, they do little to nothing to reduce virus sharing.
    • djrogers 5y ago
      a) no they don’t and b) face touching has almost nothing to do with spreading COVID. That’s April 2020 thinking there…
• AndrewBissell 5y ago
  Here's Zeke Emanuel, who has been floated for FDA commissioner, saying cloth masks don't work: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1425507067457064965 https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1425507067457064965
• rubyist5eva 5y ago
  It's funny the disposable masks I bought a box of, once, had a warning label on it "these masks do not protect against covid-19". I guess taking a video of that label with my phone is illegal at youtube now?
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• guest159835 5y ago
  OTOH, YouTube happily hosts propaganda like lies about the Pfizer vaccine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3g0jCO6v8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3g0jCO6v8 They keep spamming me with that kind of fake news
  • cwbrandsma 5y ago
    That is what happens when people are involved.
• rcurry 5y ago
  If YouTube had been around in the 50s, they’d be banning kooks who claimed smoking wasn’t healthy for you.
  • kbelder 5y ago
    In the 70s they'd be banning people who claimed the Earth wasn't cooling.
    • danuker 5y ago
      In the 1600s they'd ban people for claiming the Earth is not the center of the Solar System.
      • rcurry 5y ago
        Some science may settle during shipping and handling.
    • jiggawatts 5y ago
      Global cooling was never the accepted science, that's an urban legend, like the "we only use 10% of our brains" thing. Global warming was suspected as far back as the late 1800s, and well established by the 1970s.
      • djrogers 5y ago
        > Global cooling was never the accepted science, that's an urban legend, It was accepted enough that it was taught to me in grade school, was on the cover of Time magazine, and in the news regularly.
        • rcurry 5y ago
          I’m still freaking out about Dioxin.
      • kbelder 5y ago
        I was there, and global cooling was on the evening news and the covers of magazines. I can't speak to scientific consensus at the time, but I know it was considered such in popular media.
• babesh 5y ago
  I wonder how many people agree with these statements and which ones: - The Delta variant is more virulent but less lethal than the previous variants - There will be additional variants (lambda is already here) - Certain masks are reasonably effective (N95, KN95, multiple layers) - Certain masks are much less effective (garter) - Masks are sometimes worn incorrectly or intentionally ineffectively - Many children under 12 don't wear masks - Mask mandates are sometimes compliance indicators (wear masks onto plane, take off mask to eat and drink, people sitting inside airline terminals for hours on end maskless eating and drinking and not eating and not drinking) - Allowing maskless outdoor dining results in transmission and was only done to prevent mass outcry from small businesses. Many of these so called outdoor seating areas are de facto indoors. There have been transmissions between vaccinated people in these outdoor venues. Some had symptoms. - YouTube and the tech platforms have become the dominant venues of public discourse. The tech platforms have significant power to control discourse. This power spans countries.
  • babesh 5y ago
    People rather believe their side than reality. Just a little while later (same day). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28151372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28151372 Delta seems very contagious amongst the Astra Zeneca vaccinated. Those viral loads seem pretty darn high for vaccinated people. Vaccine entry mandates don't seem to make as much sense as masks for everyone who hasn't gotten it yet, vaccines for those who want them, and COVID cards for those who have caught the virus. The people who recovered seem to be the most resistant to new strains. They don't need masks. Masks the whole time in planes. Masks for small children too. N95 or KN95 or triple layer cloth. Outdoor dining ok if all four sides are open else shut it down. That seems to be what the science says if you want to maximize saved lives? Figuring out best course seems much harder with economic and social costs.
    • babesh 5y ago
      Prediction. Tech companies are going to delay openings again or workers will remain masked for months. Former is more likely. My reasoning. They will realize that either those people are going to be masked all day or they are going to have mass Delta outbreaks amongst the vaccinated.
• bigodbiel 5y ago
  I’m here wondering if Paul made his videos from the Senate floor, would they have been censored?
  • techrat 5y ago
    A lie is a lie is a lie. Being misleading is what Randy does and Randy doesn't really have anything else.
• mrfusion 5y ago
  Not one time in history have the people shutting down conversation and debate been on the right side of history. Ever. If you're right you don't fear opposing ideas.
  • notimetorelax 5y ago
    I think it may be a false statement. History is written by the victors - we may not know what debates were successfully shut down by the winning party.
    • google234123 5y ago
      Modern history is pretty well covered.
  • breck 5y ago
    I'm trying to think of a single counter example. This is the best kind of insight. Simple and very easy to disprove, if not true.
• TechBro8615 5y ago
  I’m long past resisting this sort of thing or speaking up about it at all. It’s been five years of this. Cards are on the table, we know who runs the tech companies and what they’re willing to do. Time to accept it and adapt. If I were a betting man or had any money I’d put it on Rumble. They seem to have a strong engineering org and have managed a few large spikes from RSBN videos. Their site is even maybe reminiscent of old school YouTube. The pendulum is gonna shift and whack a whole bunch of people in the face. Censorship, internet routes around it, blah blah blah... things will self correct, especially once this current generation of teenagers starts rebelling against their woke parents.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• nicetryguy 5y ago
  Anti-mask sentiment on HN is shocking and disappointing. They save lives. Should seatbelts be a personal choice too? Do they infringe on your "liberty"? If you want data, look at the recent case numbers of all of the southern states fighting the masks tooth and nail. EDIT: Flagged? ...really? Highly disappointing.
  • quantumBerry 5y ago
    >Should seatbelts be a personal choice too? Do they infringe on your "liberty"? Yes and Yes. Now you get it.
    • nicetryguy 5y ago
      Your ignorance is disgusting. A Darwin award awaits you.
      • quantumBerry 5y ago
        Ignorance apparently is wearing a seatbelt because of your own personal decisions and risk analysis instead of some nitwit with a badge and a gun threatening to take what you've rightfully earned.
        • nicetryguy 5y ago
          Ok. Say you do crash without wearing a seatbelt and smash your head against a windshield and sustain a head injury and survive. You're going to use additional medical resources and require months of physical therapy. You're going to drain the time and money of your family who has to now support your incapicated state. You may never be able to talk or walk again and become a drain on society for the rest of your days. The world has more people in it than you and your selfish decisions affect alot more people than just yourself.
          • quantumBerry 5y ago
            So which are you arguing against, public healthcare or the mandates that hospitals admit emergency patients regardless of ability to pay?
• belorn 5y ago
  In a diving medical video a few months ago, a diving doctor when through the different mask and what they did and what they protected against. It did not get removed or censored by Youtube, through maybe it went under detection. Surgical masks do not prevent infection to the person who wears it. They prevent spread by catching droplets so they don't spread to others. They do not filter the air you breathe, but it reduce the risks that a person brings to others. A n95 mask with a valve has the opposite properties. They are poor at catching droplets because the valve let droplets out, but they filter the air you breathe. A n95 without a valve has properties of both, but tend to be quite expensive and reserve for medical personal only. In isolation it could be both true and false with the phrase "Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.". A surgical mask does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs and sneezes. They do however protect others against respiratory emissions by the wearer, which result in an reduce infection rate by those near an infected wearer. Respiratory emissions by the wearer is reduced in a range of 0 to 90% depending on the quality and fit.
  • calvinmorrison 5y ago
    > Respiratory emissions by the wearer is reduced in a range of 0 to 90% depending on the quality and fit. Ah the old $1.00 and up sales tactic
  • giantg2 5y ago
    "A n95 without a valve has properties of both, but tend to be quite expensive and reserve for medical personal only." They are a couple of bucks and can be reused for some time. I think supply has caught up now, and they are no longer restricted. Many people have these doe things like wood working.
    • 542458 5y ago
      I do believe supply has mostly caught up. I was able to buy a proper high-quality P100 respirator (99.9X filtration, as opposed to 95% on an N95 - and with oil resistance) from 3M a few months ago for not-far-above pre-covid prices. It’s a pretty fabulous device - even working with extremely fumey substances, with the mask on I can’t smell anything. I’ve taken to using it when cleaning the compost bin or spreading fertilizer as well. You do need to get the right size for your face, beards are a no-go, and glasses are awkward - but overall I’m very impressed.
• html5web 5y ago
  Democrats are using “DEMOCRACY”.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• rglover 5y ago
  Easy fix for matters like this: citation. If you want to remove a video or other social media post, do so temporarily pending citation. Give people a way to back up their point of view with real data/research. If there is a conflict, put one of those warning banners beneath the video and link to the cited resource. Done. Otherwise, these companies look like oligarchs participating in low-key fascism.
  • __blockcipher__ 5y ago
    The problem is that you still need someone to evaluate the research. I can find a citation that says thing X, and then a different citation that says !X. This is twice as much of a problem when public health authorities like the CDC will issue statements or guidance that is directly contrary to the clinical research, as has been done repeatedly in claiming that masks work to slow community transmission of SARS-2 despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary
    • rglover 5y ago
      Then an anarchist approach is preferred. Leave everything up, link to the citation, and be done with it. The problem here is the drive to babysit people's minds. There's an arrogance of "who knows best" which creates this exact problem we're seeing. People need to put a bullet in their ego and shut up.
      • __blockcipher__ 5y ago
        Yes, I agree, and that's the world I want as well. One where we don't have this notion of centralized authorities who serve as sources of truth.
    • fitzie 5y ago
      I disagree. for example, a journalist could simply ask the CDC about page 20, in this leaked presentation here:. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infe... where it uses metrics of ~20% effective in protecting masks wearers from catching the disease in a model. instead, we have the media saying that rand is wrong, and CNN chasing doctors that dare say that masks don't prevent all spread. the media has long decided that some facts are best not shared, but now they are complicit with a censorship regime where we all know that masks don't work 100%, but we also know that we will get punished for saying it out loud. things that were called misinformation from CNN: - masks don't always work - vaccines sometimes have side effects - you will most likely survive covid - vitamin c and d will help you fight covid.
• tamaharbor 5y ago
  I have always believed that if I can smell the guy next to me, I could probably catch his virus. Even while wearing the hand-crafted mask made by my wife from an old tee-shirt using information gathered from YouTube.
• majormajor 5y ago
  I don't understand how people think that "controlling the narrative" is more overt now than in the past? In the past there wasn't even a Youtube, and if the local news in whatever-town didn't want to carry your point of view, you weren't getting any ink. Argue all you want about if you approve of the policy, but let's stop acting like people not having unlimited access to megaphones is new or that we are in some sort of democratic crisis as a result. If you want access to someone's megaphone, you've always had to convince them to take you seriously. People perceived as arguing in bad faith can easily lose that - but even then, there is no lack of news networks or websites willing to give Rand Paul a platform still. (I'd personally go further and argue for MORE slowing down of idea transmission. Bring back MORE of a cooldown and consideration period before you just regurgitate the last thing you read on Twitter.)
• kgarten 5y ago
  I'm living in Japan and I find the US discussions ridiculous. Ifasks
• InternetPerson 5y ago
  The best thing about discussing politics and public health is how open minded everyone is! I predict this is gonna be a fruitful conversation for everyone involved.
• kgarten 5y ago
  It is misinformation ... I live in Japan. Everybody wears a mask here, they work ... It's the only major difference between US and Japan in terms of prevention measures. No flue season last year and lower infection rates ... How can wearing masks be a political issue? Whoever votes for these idiots, I pitty you.
  • chana_masala 5y ago
    I pity your reliance on anecdote as evidence, but hey that's the human condition.
    • kgarten 5y ago
      Do you have an alternate, likely explanation why there is no higher incidence and was no flue season in Japan? I believe in testable hypotheses and reproducable experiments ... Yet that's a bit difficult when dealing with a pandemic and potentially deadly virus. It seems also from studies, that even cloth masks have an effect. If there's a chance I can save a life by the very slight annoyance of wearing a mask, isn't that something we should do?
• thepasswordis 5y ago
  The mask thing is actually frustrating to me in the opposite direction. The theory/intent behind cloth masks is that they might capture respiratory droplets, which might decrease mixing in a congregate setting. The cost is low, the risk is low, and the benefit (if it works) would be high. It's a no brainer: wear a mask if you are in a congregate setting until we have better data. But that isn't what MANY lay-people understand the masks to do. In the height of the fear period of the pandemic, I would see very high risk people (age >80) saying things like that they "feel much safer going out with their mask on". The misinformation about masks (that they protect the wearer) actually caused people to engage in riskier behavior than they would have otherwise. edit: and as a side point: what do you think this does to people who are already fans of rand paul? It's going to just push them further towards the fringes as a "trusted" place to get information. "Well you know $the_cathedral banned Rand Paul for speaking the truth! We can't trust $the_cathedral anymore! Where should we get data? How about $the_bazaar! (chan sites, gettr, gab, OAN, RSBN, etc.)"
  • Retric 5y ago
    Historically medical professionals used cloth masks which where repeatedly shown to reduce transmission risk of many airborne infections though minimal usefulness vs influenza. Modern masks may be significantly more effective, but nothing suggests cloth masks are useless when it comes to COVID, just less effective.
    • thepasswordis 5y ago
      To what degree does a cloth mask protect the wearer? Enough that high risk people should feel safe going out with one on? Because that's the messaging that a lot of people got. "Masks work" [if enough people are wearing them in congregate settings] might make sense to some tiny subset of people who obsessively follow the current understanding of various covid mitigation strategies. For people who don't, that reads as "masks protect you from covid", which I don't think is a claim that anybody serious is even making. "Masks work", without the additional context and nuance is itself misinformation.
      • 5y ago
• spoonjim 5y ago
  Boy these social networks have painted themselves into a terrible corner. Now they have to be the arbiter of things like the effectiveness of masks, a task for which they are not equipped and which the public does not trust them to do. Long term they are fucked.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• tlear 5y ago
  Curious how alphabet went all in with censoring republicans. I guess the idea is that R is never going to be in power again, this is either really idiotic or they know something we don’t. As it is first order of business for a republican President/senate should be ending Alpahabet and Facebook by any means necessary
• therealbilly 5y ago
  I trust Rand Paul more than I trust the Tech Bros.. It's as simple as that. So I have a problem with YouTube.
• Paradigma11 5y ago
  Lets not forget that Rand Paul is a physician and the moron who went to the senate gym while waiting for his covid test, which turned out positive: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/rand-paul-coronavirus-test-reckless/608593/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/rand-pa...
• TroisM 5y ago
  Is the Government forcing Google to do this or is this non-sense of their own doing?