8 ms·

> Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it probably that part?

by kuroguro 5y ago

0des 5y ago
I'm not much of a modern rap music person, however, by the 90s rap standards this doesn't seem that inflammatory.
- whymauri 5y ago
  Exactly what I thought. I disagree with the video and lyrics, but there's bigger rappers that have been peddling conspiratorial, third eye awakening wish-wash for at least 20 years. This is a weird video to target, and I feel like there's bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation edit: about COVID. Mostly that the most dangerous misinformation is that which can actually convince people to believe untruths, something I doubt this video can do (it seems to preach to the choir). But who am I to know how their algorithm works? The irony is that the incoming Streissand Effect will generally be meaningless. The increased exposure to this song is unlikely to convert people (there's really only one verse about COVID) and the outrage from the Right is unlikely to budge YT policy because there's a strong argument for it being misinformation. So it's pointless, circuitous outrage.
  - _fat_santa 5y ago
    > This is a weird video to target, and I feel like there's bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation. Mostly that the most dangerous misinformation is that which can actually convince people to believe untruths, something I doubt this video can do (it seems to preach to the choir). But who am I to know how their algorithm works? It's really simple. They took down the video because it's critical of Biden and the guy is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone at YT probably saw the video, said to themselves "fuck this guy", and then looked through the lyrics to find one offending word or phrase, and used that as an excuse to ban the guy.
    - s5300 5y ago
      > It's really simple. They took down the video because it's critical of Biden and the guy is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone at YT probably saw the video, said to themselves "fuck this guy", and then looked through the lyrics to find one offending word or phrase, and used that as an excuse to ban the guy. Practicing for the mental gymnastics Olympics are you now
  - slowmotiony 5y ago
    "This is a weird video to target, and I feel like there's bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation." How about I listen to what I like and you fry your fish elsewhere?
    - op00to 5y ago
      You’re free to listen to whatever you want. YouTube is free to decide not to host whatever content they want. You are free to buy a record and listen to it or whatever.
  - gkop 5y ago
    > but there's bigger rappers that have been peddling conspiratorial, third eye awakening wish-wash for at least 20 years. > This is a weird video to target So we can all agree that YT isn't arbitrarily censoring anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories, but is specifically censoring conspiracy theories related to COVID? This seems like a good thing, that they are casting a narrow net, no? Would you prefer they censor ALL anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories? Of all the scenarios where censorship could be called for, fighting misinformation harmful to public health in a global pandemic seems like a reasonable fish to fry.
    - whymauri 5y ago
      No, I think targeting COVID conspiracies makes sense. I think this video _specifically_ is small fry compared to some with 100k-1M views peddling the same nonsense in prettier packaging. I'm thinking about podcasts, radio show recordings, stuff like PragerU -- that are arguably not art or open for interpretation, but directly trying to convince viewers to believe bullshit surrounding the vaccine, safety, and COVID.
      - gkop 5y ago
        Thanks for clarifying, makes sense.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's a pandemic. We're in a Public Health Crisis in which 700 000 people have died. We have medicine to give people which is safe, and almost guarantees they won't die, and material chunk of the population won't believe it, due to information like this. I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter factual during the emergency. If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. And of course, we have to make sure that we do come out of this 'crisis' and that institutions don't use it as a means for perennial control, but I'm not really worried about that. We're all sick of this and as COVID passes out of reality, people just won't care what people have to say about it, just like any other mundane subject. So once COVID has passed, we can sing dumb songs about dumb things, if they take them down then, I suggest that would amount to undue censorship.
  - _fat_santa 5y ago
    > I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter factual during the emergency. That's precisely the problem though. The rule at Youtube is any content that goes against CDC/WHO guidelines is considered "misinformation". So to your point: > If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. Yeah unless that doctor comes to the exact same conclusion as the CDC, and parrots the exact same info, that doctor is spreading misinformation according to Youtube. I've even seen instances where the CDC would say something, Youtuber would cover it, the next week the CDC reverses that policy and Youtube will hit the Youtuber for "misinformation".
    - jollybean 5y ago
      The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science. If someone went on YouTube to articulate the current scientific consensus of Ivermectin, which is that "There is no evidence to support it as a therapy for COVID, but that there are currently studies in progress which could yield important information, and in the meantime, people should definitely not be taking it as it can be dangerous unless administered by Health professionals" - I'm doubtful such a video would be taken down. Anyone talking about COVID 'cures' in public forums for which there is no scientific consensus, during a pandemic, should definitely come under heavy scrutiny.
- will4274 5y ago
  Didn't Eminem rap about wanting to kill the president?
ofou 5y ago
Please burn all the books already published with those keywords. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=false+pandemic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=26&smoothing=10&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfalse%20pandemic%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cfalse%20pandemic%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=false+pandemic...
ajvs 5y ago
YouTube's bar for "medical misinfo" ladies and gentlemen...
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  What is the substance of your argument: that the "pandemic" is not a medical matter, or that "ain't real" is not misinfo?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pfortuny 5y ago
    That it does not even qualify as “info”…
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    I could argue that this "pandemic" is not of actual severity sufficient to require the responses; and "it ain't real" is an opinion being voiced, which is more important than a duty to "protect the public from misinformation". But I'm not. The proper counter argument to this Stalinist "you can't say that," bullshit is to keep saying it, louder. I would also like to quote NWA: "Fuck the Police"
    - 0des 5y ago
      I'd also like to add Public Enemy's "Fight The Power!" as a timeless classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmo3HFa2vjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmo3HFa2vjg
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > this Stalinist "you can't say that," bullshit is to keep saying it, louder. So you don't dispute that it is disinformation. Is idea that is that someone refusing to host disinformation is a good reason to disinform, louder?
      - 5y ago
trident5000 5y ago
In what oppressed world should you not be able to say that.
- Cycl0ps 5y ago
  They're more than allowed to say it, YouTube is equally allowed to not repeat it.
  - pauldenton 5y ago
    And Congress is allowed to strip 230 protection from YouTube and any other platform that applies their rules selectively.
    - Cycl0ps 5y ago
      No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  - trident5000 5y ago
    Im not talking about technicalities. Im talking about what type of society do we want to live in.
JPKab 5y ago
I can probably get on Google and find a few dozen hip hop songs where the artists claim that the US government invented the AIDS virus to kill Black people. Let's not pretend that this is about lyrics that promote misinformation and instead admit that this is about lyrics which go against the current gated institutional narrative.

> Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it probably that part?

0des 5y ago

I'm not much of a modern rap music person, however, by the 90s rap standards this doesn't seem that inflammatory.

whymauri 5y ago
Exactly what I thought. I disagree with the video and lyrics, but there's bigger rappers that have been peddling conspiratorial, third eye awakening wish-wash for at least 20 years. This is a weird video to target, and I feel like there's bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation edit: about COVID. Mostly that the most dangerous misinformation is that which can actually convince people to believe untruths, something I doubt this video can do (it seems to preach to the choir). But who am I to know how their algorithm works? The irony is that the incoming Streissand Effect will generally be meaningless. The increased exposure to this song is unlikely to convert people (there's really only one verse about COVID) and the outrage from the Right is unlikely to budge YT policy because there's a strong argument for it being misinformation. So it's pointless, circuitous outrage.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  > This is a weird video to target, and I feel like there's bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation. Mostly that the most dangerous misinformation is that which can actually convince people to believe untruths, something I doubt this video can do (it seems to preach to the choir). But who am I to know how their algorithm works? It's really simple. They took down the video because it's critical of Biden and the guy is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone at YT probably saw the video, said to themselves "fuck this guy", and then looked through the lyrics to find one offending word or phrase, and used that as an excuse to ban the guy.
  - s5300 5y ago
    > It's really simple. They took down the video because it's critical of Biden and the guy is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone at YT probably saw the video, said to themselves "fuck this guy", and then looked through the lyrics to find one offending word or phrase, and used that as an excuse to ban the guy. Practicing for the mental gymnastics Olympics are you now
- slowmotiony 5y ago
  "This is a weird video to target, and I feel like there's bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation." How about I listen to what I like and you fry your fish elsewhere?
  - op00to 5y ago
    You’re free to listen to whatever you want. YouTube is free to decide not to host whatever content they want. You are free to buy a record and listen to it or whatever.
- gkop 5y ago
  > but there's bigger rappers that have been peddling conspiratorial, third eye awakening wish-wash for at least 20 years. > This is a weird video to target So we can all agree that YT isn't arbitrarily censoring anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories, but is specifically censoring conspiracy theories related to COVID? This seems like a good thing, that they are casting a narrow net, no? Would you prefer they censor ALL anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories? Of all the scenarios where censorship could be called for, fighting misinformation harmful to public health in a global pandemic seems like a reasonable fish to fry.
  - whymauri 5y ago
    No, I think targeting COVID conspiracies makes sense. I think this video _specifically_ is small fry compared to some with 100k-1M views peddling the same nonsense in prettier packaging. I'm thinking about podcasts, radio show recordings, stuff like PragerU -- that are arguably not art or open for interpretation, but directly trying to convince viewers to believe bullshit surrounding the vaccine, safety, and COVID.
    - gkop 5y ago
      Thanks for clarifying, makes sense.
jollybean 5y ago
It's a pandemic. We're in a Public Health Crisis in which 700 000 people have died. We have medicine to give people which is safe, and almost guarantees they won't die, and material chunk of the population won't believe it, due to information like this. I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter factual during the emergency. If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. And of course, we have to make sure that we do come out of this 'crisis' and that institutions don't use it as a means for perennial control, but I'm not really worried about that. We're all sick of this and as COVID passes out of reality, people just won't care what people have to say about it, just like any other mundane subject. So once COVID has passed, we can sing dumb songs about dumb things, if they take them down then, I suggest that would amount to undue censorship.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  > I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter factual during the emergency. That's precisely the problem though. The rule at Youtube is any content that goes against CDC/WHO guidelines is considered "misinformation". So to your point: > If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. Yeah unless that doctor comes to the exact same conclusion as the CDC, and parrots the exact same info, that doctor is spreading misinformation according to Youtube. I've even seen instances where the CDC would say something, Youtuber would cover it, the next week the CDC reverses that policy and Youtube will hit the Youtuber for "misinformation".
  - jollybean 5y ago
    The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science. If someone went on YouTube to articulate the current scientific consensus of Ivermectin, which is that "There is no evidence to support it as a therapy for COVID, but that there are currently studies in progress which could yield important information, and in the meantime, people should definitely not be taking it as it can be dangerous unless administered by Health professionals" - I'm doubtful such a video would be taken down. Anyone talking about COVID 'cures' in public forums for which there is no scientific consensus, during a pandemic, should definitely come under heavy scrutiny.
will4274 5y ago
Didn't Eminem rap about wanting to kill the president?

ofou 5y ago

Please burn all the books already published with those keywords. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=false+pandemic&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=26&smoothing=10&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfalse%20pandemic%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cfalse%20pandemic%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=false+pandemic...

ajvs 5y ago

YouTube's bar for "medical misinfo" ladies and gentlemen...

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
What is the substance of your argument: that the "pandemic" is not a medical matter, or that "ain't real" is not misinfo?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pfortuny 5y ago
  That it does not even qualify as “info”…
- h2odragon 5y ago
  I could argue that this "pandemic" is not of actual severity sufficient to require the responses; and "it ain't real" is an opinion being voiced, which is more important than a duty to "protect the public from misinformation". But I'm not. The proper counter argument to this Stalinist "you can't say that," bullshit is to keep saying it, louder. I would also like to quote NWA: "Fuck the Police"
  - 0des 5y ago
    I'd also like to add Public Enemy's "Fight The Power!" as a timeless classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmo3HFa2vjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmo3HFa2vjg
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > this Stalinist "you can't say that," bullshit is to keep saying it, louder. So you don't dispute that it is disinformation. Is idea that is that someone refusing to host disinformation is a good reason to disinform, louder?
    - 5y ago

trident5000 5y ago

In what oppressed world should you not be able to say that.

Cycl0ps 5y ago
They're more than allowed to say it, YouTube is equally allowed to not repeat it.
- pauldenton 5y ago
  And Congress is allowed to strip 230 protection from YouTube and any other platform that applies their rules selectively.
  - Cycl0ps 5y ago
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- trident5000 5y ago
  Im not talking about technicalities. Im talking about what type of society do we want to live in.

JPKab 5y ago

I can probably get on Google and find a few dozen hip hop songs where the artists claim that the US government invented the AIDS virus to kill Black people. Let's not pretend that this is about lyrics that promote misinformation and instead admit that this is about lyrics which go against the current gated institutional narrative.