5 ms·

Not sure if everyone has read the actual policy (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11161123 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11161123) but for

Not sure if everyone has read the actual policy (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11161123 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/11161123) but for those who hasn't: Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes harmful misinformation about currently approved and administered vaccines on any of the following: * Vaccine safety: content alleging that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities * Efficacy of vaccines: content claiming that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease * Ingredients in vaccines: content misrepresenting the substances contained in vaccines Also, the policy states some exceptional cases such as countervailing views with a support from medical experts, firsthand experiences, etc.

grillvogel 5y ago
this is legitimately dystopian. only can mention side effects that have been "recognized by health authorities" ? how would whistleblowing even be possible in this environment?
- thesagan 5y ago
  Misinformation should be put out in sunlight or else the public may lose the ability to think critically in some respects. Then they’ll be dependent on these companies to steer dialogue and be truth-tellers.
- jolux 5y ago
  > Also, the policy states some exceptional cases such as countervailing views with a support from medical experts, firsthand experiences, etc.
  - grillvogel 5y ago
    its obvious that contrary opinions will be banned first with option to appeal coming after. im sure that will be a totally open and transparent process.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  The thing is, youtube is crappy place for "whistle blowing" because video is a terrible medium for people evaluating information critically - any references a video might have will slip by a person, the general demeanor of a presenter can matter more than their content or credentials, etc. It's not unreasonable for youtube to refuse non-mainstream health theories even if those theories deserve an airing somewhere.
  - grillvogel 5y ago
    >video is a terrible medium for people evaluating information critically yes, but this is the world we live in currently. getting information from the "factual" videos will still be encouraged
mdp2021 5y ago
Also useful the (consistent) Axios summary: https://www.axios.com/youtube-anti-vax-misinformation-vaccination-498d9b3f-42e7-4378-8a27-6c993b7d34cb.html https://www.axios.com/youtube-anti-vax-misinformation-vaccin...
chunkyfunky 5y ago
Normally I'd be opposed to censorship in general, but in this case I'm kind of glad, but only because shit like this is actually happening even now: https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0927/1249210-covid-patient-donegal/ https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0927/1249210-covid-pati... AFAIC, anything they can do to suppress the raving lunacy of people like the ones who convinced that poor man to leave hospital, may he rest in peace, is a good thing in my book.
justwanttolearn 5y ago
I feel like the efficacy is debatable. It reduces severe symptoms but more and more vaccinated are contracting it daily even in places of 95+% vaccinated so there's a good dialogue to be had here
- ipqk 5y ago
  Uh yeah, when more people are vaccinated, a greater percentage that get it will be vaccinated.
  - honkdaddy 5y ago
    The original hope was that vaccinated people wouldn't get it at all, as per any other vaccine. Delta proved for this to not to be the case, unfortunately.
    - summerlight 5y ago
      > The original hope was that vaccinated people wouldn't get it at all, as per any other vaccine This is false. No vaccine provides 100% protection. Even MMR, one of the most battle-tested vaccine provides ~97% protection against measles and ~88% against mumps. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html If you get higher than 70% efficacy then it's usually considered very helpful for public health. Last year, we were not even sure if we can get 50% efficacy (a borderline for approval) but it turns out that COVID vaccines are so effective that it even works reasonably well for variants, with a caveat of diminishing effects over time.
      - honkdaddy 5y ago
        >it turns out that COVID vaccines are so effective that it even works reasonably well for variants As per this CDC[1] report - "Two doses of mRNA vaccines were 74.7% effective against infection among nursing home residents early in the vaccination program (March–May 2021). During June–July 2021, when B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulation predominated, effectiveness declined significantly to 53.1%." Exactly as I originally commented and you deemed false, due to the Delta variant, we observed an efficacy level (53.1%) considerably lower than any other modern vaccines. I'm not sure what's controversial about the statement that it's obvious that the COVID vaccines are unforunately not working nearly as well as we were originally told that they would. [1]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm
mdp2021 5y ago
Meanwhile, news just in: Slovenia apparently suspended today the use of JnJ, after the death of a 20yo in the past hours, «...until all details related to this case are clarified» (Health Minister Janez Poklukar)¹. And I have difficulties in matching this piece of news with the reported words of Matt Halprin: «YouTube will take down videos that claim such vaccines are dangerous». And also wonder if this (possible) case fits within the «rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities» (the policy). ¹https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/29/slovenia-temporarily-suspends-use-of-johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/29/slovenia-temporarily-sus...

grillvogel 5y ago

this is legitimately dystopian. only can mention side effects that have been "recognized by health authorities" ? how would whistleblowing even be possible in this environment?

thesagan 5y ago
Misinformation should be put out in sunlight or else the public may lose the ability to think critically in some respects. Then they’ll be dependent on these companies to steer dialogue and be truth-tellers.
jolux 5y ago
> Also, the policy states some exceptional cases such as countervailing views with a support from medical experts, firsthand experiences, etc.
- grillvogel 5y ago
  its obvious that contrary opinions will be banned first with option to appeal coming after. im sure that will be a totally open and transparent process.
joe_the_user 5y ago
The thing is, youtube is crappy place for "whistle blowing" because video is a terrible medium for people evaluating information critically - any references a video might have will slip by a person, the general demeanor of a presenter can matter more than their content or credentials, etc. It's not unreasonable for youtube to refuse non-mainstream health theories even if those theories deserve an airing somewhere.
- grillvogel 5y ago
  >video is a terrible medium for people evaluating information critically yes, but this is the world we live in currently. getting information from the "factual" videos will still be encouraged

mdp2021 5y ago

Also useful the (consistent) Axios summary: https://www.axios.com/youtube-anti-vax-misinformation-vaccination-498d9b3f-42e7-4378-8a27-6c993b7d34cb.html https://www.axios.com/youtube-anti-vax-misinformation-vaccin...

chunkyfunky 5y ago

Normally I'd be opposed to censorship in general, but in this case I'm kind of glad, but only because shit like this is actually happening even now: https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0927/1249210-covid-patient-donegal/ https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0927/1249210-covid-pati... AFAIC, anything they can do to suppress the raving lunacy of people like the ones who convinced that poor man to leave hospital, may he rest in peace, is a good thing in my book.

justwanttolearn 5y ago

I feel like the efficacy is debatable. It reduces severe symptoms but more and more vaccinated are contracting it daily even in places of 95+% vaccinated so there's a good dialogue to be had here

ipqk 5y ago
Uh yeah, when more people are vaccinated, a greater percentage that get it will be vaccinated.
- honkdaddy 5y ago
  The original hope was that vaccinated people wouldn't get it at all, as per any other vaccine. Delta proved for this to not to be the case, unfortunately.
  - summerlight 5y ago
    > The original hope was that vaccinated people wouldn't get it at all, as per any other vaccine This is false. No vaccine provides 100% protection. Even MMR, one of the most battle-tested vaccine provides ~97% protection against measles and ~88% against mumps. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html If you get higher than 70% efficacy then it's usually considered very helpful for public health. Last year, we were not even sure if we can get 50% efficacy (a borderline for approval) but it turns out that COVID vaccines are so effective that it even works reasonably well for variants, with a caveat of diminishing effects over time.
    - honkdaddy 5y ago
      >it turns out that COVID vaccines are so effective that it even works reasonably well for variants As per this CDC[1] report - "Two doses of mRNA vaccines were 74.7% effective against infection among nursing home residents early in the vaccination program (March–May 2021). During June–July 2021, when B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant circulation predominated, effectiveness declined significantly to 53.1%." Exactly as I originally commented and you deemed false, due to the Delta variant, we observed an efficacy level (53.1%) considerably lower than any other modern vaccines. I'm not sure what's controversial about the statement that it's obvious that the COVID vaccines are unforunately not working nearly as well as we were originally told that they would. [1]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm

mdp2021 5y ago

Meanwhile, news just in: Slovenia apparently suspended today the use of JnJ, after the death of a 20yo in the past hours, «...until all details related to this case are clarified» (Health Minister Janez Poklukar)¹. And I have difficulties in matching this piece of news with the reported words of Matt Halprin: «YouTube will take down videos that claim such vaccines are dangerous». And also wonder if this (possible) case fits within the «rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities» (the policy). ¹https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/29/slovenia-temporarily-suspends-use-of-johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/29/slovenia-temporarily-sus...