6 ms·

YouTube Removes R.F. Kennedy Presidential Candidate Interview

evo_9 3y ago
[flagged]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > God forbid the man is allowed to speak directly to the American people instead of the media's portrayal of him, which is highly inaccurate. He is allowed to do so. He is not allowed to violate YouTube’s platform policies while using their platform. He can, of course, host his videos on his own infrastructure (or those interviewing him can host them on theirs.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Alupis 3y ago
    That may be the case, but we don't have to like it. He may or may not be correct with his assertions - but it doesn't matter. There's no safe world where mega-corps get to be the arbiter of "truth". Allowing his content to be accessible to everyone, debated, and perhaps even ridiculed is how we expose truths and fallacies. Hiding them away or suppressing them doesn't somehow make things disappear. How many things were suppressed regarding the COVID-19 origin story; labeled as false and then turned out to be true? How many things regarding the ongoing Hunter Biden story were suppressed, and then turned out to be true? I'm not passing judgement on RFK Jr's statements or their truthiness - I am passing judgement on mega-corps getting to decide what the "truth" is. This modern era we live in, where we don't want to hear or see anything we disagree with, is very dangerous.
    - WeylandYutani 3y ago
      For the first time in human history people get to choose their own religion. The modern era only looks bad if you ignore the past.
  - proc0 3y ago
    > He can, of course, host his videos on his own infrastructure (or those interviewing him can host them on theirs.) Imagine your phone carrier starts listening in on your phone calls, and they decide certain ideas are not allowed so they block you from using your phone. Is the response "well you can build your own phone service and talk with people there". Yes, they're a private company, but large social media companies are large because the public is on them... and they are leveraging this power to censor and shape public opinion. It's arguably a huge amount of power that should be regulated to protect the public from corporate abuse.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > Is the response "well you can build your own phone service and talk with people there". Are you claiming hosting video on the internet is comparable to creating a telephone network? All RFK Jr has to do is pay a host for some bandwidth and his video is available to all on his website.
      - proc0 3y ago
        It's not just hosting a video though, it's going to multiple stream channels hosted by other people and having millions of people watch on-demand. YouTube is insanely huge, and there is no comparison. If all social media bans RFK, he might as well retire.
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      We could give YouTube the same rights that we give other common carriers, but I suspect the antitrust exemptions may make people unhappy. We would gain the ability to force them to be non-discriminatory, though.
    - chomp 3y ago
      Why do you think a phone call (with implied privacy and the legal framework to back it up) is the same as a company providing you public presence under their brand name, and advertising revenue?
      - 3y ago
  - kvetching 3y ago
    Big Tech is doing far more to affect our elections than anything a foreign state like Russia could do
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Sometimes freedom of speech and the democratic process has to be prioritized over private platform policies. There are large nations where all large mass media networks are forced to allow every candidate and party a certain amount of election propaganda on their airwaves, maybe that's an idea to stop this abuse by YouTube and other networks?
    - krapp 3y ago
      >Sometimes freedom of speech and the democratic process has to be prioritized over private platform policies. Freedom of speech is exactly what allows Youtube to decide what speech to allow and what speech to prevent, and under what terms. Forcing a private company to publish speech against its will is the exact opposite of freedom. >There are large nations where all large mass media networks are forced to allow every candidate and party a certain amount of election propaganda on their airwaves, maybe that's an idea to stop this abuse by YouTube and other networks? It isn't abuse. Youtube removed the material because it violated their policies. Also, Youtube isn't a mass media broadcaster. The premise for regulation of broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum is that useful bandwidth represents a limited resource. The internet isn't a limited resource, there isn't a finite amount of "internet" to be used that Youtube is taking up, so the argument for regulating Youtube as if it were a broadcaster makes no sense.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        If you can't admit that YouTube is a mass media broadcaster, then I feel it's not really an honest discussion. Of course they are, they're huge enough now, they're replacing TV. It doesn't matter that they're a private company. The question of free speech can't be reduced to technicalities. We're all people and we're all smarter than that. First it's YouTube and Facebook censoring, next it's your ISP, next it's your chat apps. And even if you're 100% aligned with their decisions on what should be censored, one day you won't. And then you have no way to be heard.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > If you can't admit that YouTube is a mass media broadcaster Mass media broadcasters also set content policies, and usually are much narrower than YouTube in what they will carry (both as to actual content and provenance.) So, sure what you're point is there, is it now that YT is excessively tolerant rather than too restrictive?
- api 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TeeMassive 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - digdugdirk 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 3y ago
        You broke the site guidelines badly here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, so we have to ban accounts that do it. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    By "gaslighting," did you mean "masquerading"? "Gaslighting" is not appropriate here.
    - api 3y ago
- dralley 3y ago
  >> I was under the impression he was a nut thx to the headlines that pepper the American media landscape until I watched most of his Town Hall the other night. He thinks HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
  - TeeMassive 3y ago
    Why do you think that would make him less of a good choice than the other main presidential candidates?
    - topynate 3y ago
      Thabo Mbeki had the same view and that didn't exactly work out great for South Africa.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      A person not understanding the limits of their intellect and not deferring to subject matter experts makes for a bad leader.
    - throwawaysleep 3y ago
      I want my leaders to live in reality.
      - TeeMassive 3y ago
        Sure, but again I said compared to the other main candidates. Biden is obviously not there mentally and Trump is living in his own ego.
  - zapdrive 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dekhn 3y ago
      I think at this point if you say "I question the scientific community so much that I can't really believe HIV causes AIDS" that sort of falls close to flat earth conspiracy theorists. The difference being the flat earth folks would be able to falsify their "theory" by just flying straight for n,000 miles, you'd be injecting yourself with pure HIV virus to establish that you didn't get AIDS.
- mrstone 3y ago
  Yikes.
- tootie 3y ago
  He is very much a nut. Much like Ron Paul he applies a broad brush to everything to make it sound like he's got some good intentions (which he actually might) but his specific ideas and proposed policies are bona fide nonsense that could results in tens of millions of excess deaths.
tboyd47 3y ago
His biggest liability will be his stance on vaccines. It's too nuanced and he's already been misrepresented too much. Telling the average person anything except "vaccines save lives" is already a bit like telling a child that Santa Claus isn't real. The only meaningful response you get is, "ARE YOU CALLING MY MOMMY A LIAR!" And that's only about one in five -- the other four will just give blank stares. People were able to hear Trump give a nuanced view on abortion in 2016 because he had never spoken on the topic before-- certainly not as a Republican. Kennedy has already become famous for being anti-vaxx, so he'll be seen in that light regardless of what he says. But his family name and personal charisma might overcome that. We'll see.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  [flagged]
- tootie 3y ago
  His stance on vaccines is absolutely wild. He thinks that a majority of modern diseases were directly caused by vaccine research including HIV, Lyme and going all the way back to the Spanish Flu.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    Wild does not mean wrong, just contrary to the dominant narrative. We've just lived through the century of Bernays when propaganda/advertising came into its own. The science of manipulation was developed. But humans haven't changed significantly, so we're just as susceptible as we were in the early 1900s. Even though I think RFK Jr is wrong about some of it, not taking enough factors into account, I welcome anyone's wild stances when backed with empirical evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
  - tboyd47 3y ago
    That’s not his “stance” on vaccines. That may have been an off-hand comment he made somewhere, but his stance which he reiterates over and over is that vaccines should be safety tested. Totally sensible policy that seems like it should be already in place. Your comment proves my point, though. He can clarify until he’s blue in the face, and people will ignore that and remember the zany things that have been attributed to him, even if he never said them.
proc0 3y ago
How else would we know what is true or false?! I'm so happy we have large for-profit corporations doing the hard work of telling us what is true and false. Surely they would NEVER make mistakes, and NEVER have any other interests in mind, even though their priority is profit. Long live our corporate overlords!
- slashdev 3y ago
  It was eye opening to see how Twitter was moderating things behind the scenes. These companies can be trusted about as much as you’d trust a wild bear to share the trail with you peacefully. Why the downvotes? Asking for a friend.
  - ldehaan 3y ago
    [dead]
  - ahahahahah 3y ago
    In what way was it eye opening? As far as I know, there hasn't been any particularly interesting revelations.
    - slashdev 3y ago
      To me the biggest revelation was how enmeshed the Twitter executives were with the FBI, the CIA, the DHS, local and state governments, etc. The reporting on the left was very dismissive, so if you don't also read any right leaning news sources, you definitely didn't get a balanced take on it. News media is so biased these days (on both sides) that you have to read both sides critically just to get some idea of where the truth might lie. Other revelations of note were how they suppressed information arbitrarily, seemingly on a whim. Sometimes at the behest of the government. That's very dangerous when the government can start dictating what speech is allowed and what is not.
pessimizer 3y ago
Annoying how this immediately becomes a referendum on quality of RFK Jr. as a candidate. When they ban single mothers, will it turn into a referendum on the desirability of a father in the household? Militantly short-sighted. Like people will threaten you and your job if you say that it might be a slippery slope.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  Whenever I see a discussion about single mothers, it often does.
kepler1 3y ago
Is there some reason we cannot put the reason for the removal (misinformation) in the headline of this HN story, and save everyone the guessing/speculation?
- 542458 3y ago
  Yeah, I think the title here was editorialized. TLA's title is "YouTube removed video of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for violating vaccine misinformation policy", whereas the HN title is "YouTube Removes R.F. Kennedy Presidential Candidate Interview", which makes it sounds like YouTube removed official campaign materials.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    It didn't all fit :/ also I see more A/B testing of headlines in incognito mode...
- literalAardvark 3y ago
  But then what do we do with all these tar and feathers?
- stcroixx 3y ago
  We'd just have to guess/speculate why they labeled it 'misinformation'. Nobody actually believes YouTube has any qualifications whatsoever to decide that. It's not a valid justification unless you accept corporate authoritarian censorship.
klrtmyx 3y ago
[flagged]
ugjka 3y ago
Ah yeah, vaccines kill people just like guns /s
renewiltord 3y ago
What I like about Joe Rogan and Spotify is you get someone's best arguments for something. You don't need someone to tell you "So and so's a crazy person"; you can just listen to them talk. And I think that's why JR's such a good interviewer. Ultimately, from all this I think RFK is a bit of a nut, but there's a lot he's right about as well, which is very different from the view in the media that he's 100% nutty.
- kmos17 3y ago
  From having listened to him doing interviews I would say it is exactly what makes him an awful interviewer, he never pushes back and accepts at face value statements from non experts on scientific topics. But then again this is pretty representative of our current public discourse and why people like Kennedy get traction, while making statements that can directly lead to very large numbers of deaths and perfectly preventable outcomes.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    > can directly lead to very large numbers of deaths and perfectly preventable outcomes For perspective, Kennedy is primarying Biden. This is crime bill Biden. Biden, during whose VP stint we built those concentration camps on the Mexican border. Biden who continues the droning of civilians. Etc. Which of the two caused more "preventable outcomes?" Somehow, I'm more concerned with incarceration and killing than I am about censoring speech.
  - curtis3389 3y ago
    Joe Rogan is Gwyneth Paltrow is Alex Jones is ... They're just moral-less entertainers trying to sell you snake oil on the internet
olalonde 3y ago
Strange coincidence, I just watched another interview of him on YouTube[0]. It just seems to me that he is worried about regulatory capture and the lack of longer term studies of certain vaccines. Personally, I'm far more bothered by platforms policing information than misinformation. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqtONE93APQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqtONE93APQ
- dekhn 3y ago
  If he was truly operating in good faith and also believed what he's saying, you'd think that he'd do a better job of articulating his ideas rather than sort of looking like a conspiracy nut. Speaking intelligently goes a long way to helping convince people.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deweller 3y ago
Why is vaccine misinformation singled out by YouTube? You can't tell me there isn't tons of misinformation on other topics, even harmful topics, that gets uploaded and viewed every day. Where does it end? Why should YouTube get to decide what is correct and what is misleading information on every topic? The job of content moderation should be separated from the platform provider.
- curtis3389 3y ago
  It got singled out in 2021 to help reduce mass deaths from the pandemic.
spaceman_2020 3y ago
The idea that vaccines are 100% always safe is absolutely absurd No such thing in nature or science that's 100% safe. It's okay if someone wants to talk about the edge cases that result in failure.
- ahahahahah 3y ago
  What does that have to do with anything? Are you just living in a fantasy world? It would be great if you stick to discussing or criticizing actual policies instead of whatever made up shit you imagined.
  - stringfood 3y ago
    [dead]

[flagged]

dragonwriter 3y ago
> God forbid the man is allowed to speak directly to the American people instead of the media's portrayal of him, which is highly inaccurate. He is allowed to do so. He is not allowed to violate YouTube’s platform policies while using their platform. He can, of course, host his videos on his own infrastructure (or those interviewing him can host them on theirs.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Alupis 3y ago
  That may be the case, but we don't have to like it. He may or may not be correct with his assertions - but it doesn't matter. There's no safe world where mega-corps get to be the arbiter of "truth". Allowing his content to be accessible to everyone, debated, and perhaps even ridiculed is how we expose truths and fallacies. Hiding them away or suppressing them doesn't somehow make things disappear. How many things were suppressed regarding the COVID-19 origin story; labeled as false and then turned out to be true? How many things regarding the ongoing Hunter Biden story were suppressed, and then turned out to be true? I'm not passing judgement on RFK Jr's statements or their truthiness - I am passing judgement on mega-corps getting to decide what the "truth" is. This modern era we live in, where we don't want to hear or see anything we disagree with, is very dangerous.
  - WeylandYutani 3y ago
    For the first time in human history people get to choose their own religion. The modern era only looks bad if you ignore the past.
- proc0 3y ago
  > He can, of course, host his videos on his own infrastructure (or those interviewing him can host them on theirs.) Imagine your phone carrier starts listening in on your phone calls, and they decide certain ideas are not allowed so they block you from using your phone. Is the response "well you can build your own phone service and talk with people there". Yes, they're a private company, but large social media companies are large because the public is on them... and they are leveraging this power to censor and shape public opinion. It's arguably a huge amount of power that should be regulated to protect the public from corporate abuse.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > Is the response "well you can build your own phone service and talk with people there". Are you claiming hosting video on the internet is comparable to creating a telephone network? All RFK Jr has to do is pay a host for some bandwidth and his video is available to all on his website.
    - proc0 3y ago
      It's not just hosting a video though, it's going to multiple stream channels hosted by other people and having millions of people watch on-demand. YouTube is insanely huge, and there is no comparison. If all social media bans RFK, he might as well retire.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    We could give YouTube the same rights that we give other common carriers, but I suspect the antitrust exemptions may make people unhappy. We would gain the ability to force them to be non-discriminatory, though.
  - chomp 3y ago
    Why do you think a phone call (with implied privacy and the legal framework to back it up) is the same as a company providing you public presence under their brand name, and advertising revenue?
    - 3y ago
- kvetching 3y ago
  Big Tech is doing far more to affect our elections than anything a foreign state like Russia could do
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Sometimes freedom of speech and the democratic process has to be prioritized over private platform policies. There are large nations where all large mass media networks are forced to allow every candidate and party a certain amount of election propaganda on their airwaves, maybe that's an idea to stop this abuse by YouTube and other networks?
  - krapp 3y ago
    >Sometimes freedom of speech and the democratic process has to be prioritized over private platform policies. Freedom of speech is exactly what allows Youtube to decide what speech to allow and what speech to prevent, and under what terms. Forcing a private company to publish speech against its will is the exact opposite of freedom. >There are large nations where all large mass media networks are forced to allow every candidate and party a certain amount of election propaganda on their airwaves, maybe that's an idea to stop this abuse by YouTube and other networks? It isn't abuse. Youtube removed the material because it violated their policies. Also, Youtube isn't a mass media broadcaster. The premise for regulation of broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum is that useful bandwidth represents a limited resource. The internet isn't a limited resource, there isn't a finite amount of "internet" to be used that Youtube is taking up, so the argument for regulating Youtube as if it were a broadcaster makes no sense.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      If you can't admit that YouTube is a mass media broadcaster, then I feel it's not really an honest discussion. Of course they are, they're huge enough now, they're replacing TV. It doesn't matter that they're a private company. The question of free speech can't be reduced to technicalities. We're all people and we're all smarter than that. First it's YouTube and Facebook censoring, next it's your ISP, next it's your chat apps. And even if you're 100% aligned with their decisions on what should be censored, one day you won't. And then you have no way to be heard.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > If you can't admit that YouTube is a mass media broadcaster Mass media broadcasters also set content policies, and usually are much narrower than YouTube in what they will carry (both as to actual content and provenance.) So, sure what you're point is there, is it now that YT is excessively tolerant rather than too restrictive?
api 3y ago
[flagged]
- TeeMassive 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - digdugdirk 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 3y ago
        You broke the site guidelines badly here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, so we have to ban accounts that do it. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  By "gaslighting," did you mean "masquerading"? "Gaslighting" is not appropriate here.
  - api 3y ago
dralley 3y ago
>> I was under the impression he was a nut thx to the headlines that pepper the American media landscape until I watched most of his Town Hall the other night. He thinks HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
- TeeMassive 3y ago
  Why do you think that would make him less of a good choice than the other main presidential candidates?
  - topynate 3y ago
    Thabo Mbeki had the same view and that didn't exactly work out great for South Africa.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    A person not understanding the limits of their intellect and not deferring to subject matter experts makes for a bad leader.
  - throwawaysleep 3y ago
    I want my leaders to live in reality.
    - TeeMassive 3y ago
      Sure, but again I said compared to the other main candidates. Biden is obviously not there mentally and Trump is living in his own ego.
- zapdrive 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dekhn 3y ago
    I think at this point if you say "I question the scientific community so much that I can't really believe HIV causes AIDS" that sort of falls close to flat earth conspiracy theorists. The difference being the flat earth folks would be able to falsify their "theory" by just flying straight for n,000 miles, you'd be injecting yourself with pure HIV virus to establish that you didn't get AIDS.
mrstone 3y ago
Yikes.
tootie 3y ago
He is very much a nut. Much like Ron Paul he applies a broad brush to everything to make it sound like he's got some good intentions (which he actually might) but his specific ideas and proposed policies are bona fide nonsense that could results in tens of millions of excess deaths.

His biggest liability will be his stance on vaccines. It's too nuanced and he's already been misrepresented too much. Telling the average person anything except "vaccines save lives" is already a bit like telling a child that Santa Claus isn't real. The only meaningful response you get is, "ARE YOU CALLING MY MOMMY A LIAR!" And that's only about one in five -- the other four will just give blank stares. People were able to hear Trump give a nuanced view on abortion in 2016 because he had never spoken on the topic before-- certainly not as a Republican. Kennedy has already become famous for being anti-vaxx, so he'll be seen in that light regardless of what he says. But his family name and personal charisma might overcome that. We'll see.

rightbyte 3y ago
[flagged]
tootie 3y ago
His stance on vaccines is absolutely wild. He thinks that a majority of modern diseases were directly caused by vaccine research including HIV, Lyme and going all the way back to the Spanish Flu.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  Wild does not mean wrong, just contrary to the dominant narrative. We've just lived through the century of Bernays when propaganda/advertising came into its own. The science of manipulation was developed. But humans haven't changed significantly, so we're just as susceptible as we were in the early 1900s. Even though I think RFK Jr is wrong about some of it, not taking enough factors into account, I welcome anyone's wild stances when backed with empirical evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
- tboyd47 3y ago
  That’s not his “stance” on vaccines. That may have been an off-hand comment he made somewhere, but his stance which he reiterates over and over is that vaccines should be safety tested. Totally sensible policy that seems like it should be already in place. Your comment proves my point, though. He can clarify until he’s blue in the face, and people will ignore that and remember the zany things that have been attributed to him, even if he never said them.

proc0 3y ago

How else would we know what is true or false?! I'm so happy we have large for-profit corporations doing the hard work of telling us what is true and false. Surely they would NEVER make mistakes, and NEVER have any other interests in mind, even though their priority is profit. Long live our corporate overlords!

slashdev 3y ago
It was eye opening to see how Twitter was moderating things behind the scenes. These companies can be trusted about as much as you’d trust a wild bear to share the trail with you peacefully. Why the downvotes? Asking for a friend.
- ldehaan 3y ago
  [dead]
- ahahahahah 3y ago
  In what way was it eye opening? As far as I know, there hasn't been any particularly interesting revelations.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    To me the biggest revelation was how enmeshed the Twitter executives were with the FBI, the CIA, the DHS, local and state governments, etc. The reporting on the left was very dismissive, so if you don't also read any right leaning news sources, you definitely didn't get a balanced take on it. News media is so biased these days (on both sides) that you have to read both sides critically just to get some idea of where the truth might lie. Other revelations of note were how they suppressed information arbitrarily, seemingly on a whim. Sometimes at the behest of the government. That's very dangerous when the government can start dictating what speech is allowed and what is not.

pessimizer 3y ago

Annoying how this immediately becomes a referendum on quality of RFK Jr. as a candidate. When they ban single mothers, will it turn into a referendum on the desirability of a father in the household? Militantly short-sighted. Like people will threaten you and your job if you say that it might be a slippery slope.

throwawaysleep 3y ago
Whenever I see a discussion about single mothers, it often does.

kepler1 3y ago

Is there some reason we cannot put the reason for the removal (misinformation) in the headline of this HN story, and save everyone the guessing/speculation?

542458 3y ago
Yeah, I think the title here was editorialized. TLA's title is "YouTube removed video of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for violating vaccine misinformation policy", whereas the HN title is "YouTube Removes R.F. Kennedy Presidential Candidate Interview", which makes it sounds like YouTube removed official campaign materials.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  It didn't all fit :/ also I see more A/B testing of headlines in incognito mode...
literalAardvark 3y ago
But then what do we do with all these tar and feathers?
stcroixx 3y ago
We'd just have to guess/speculate why they labeled it 'misinformation'. Nobody actually believes YouTube has any qualifications whatsoever to decide that. It's not a valid justification unless you accept corporate authoritarian censorship.

klrtmyx 3y ago

[flagged]

ugjka 3y ago

Ah yeah, vaccines kill people just like guns /s

renewiltord 3y ago

What I like about Joe Rogan and Spotify is you get someone's best arguments for something. You don't need someone to tell you "So and so's a crazy person"; you can just listen to them talk. And I think that's why JR's such a good interviewer. Ultimately, from all this I think RFK is a bit of a nut, but there's a lot he's right about as well, which is very different from the view in the media that he's 100% nutty.

kmos17 3y ago
From having listened to him doing interviews I would say it is exactly what makes him an awful interviewer, he never pushes back and accepts at face value statements from non experts on scientific topics. But then again this is pretty representative of our current public discourse and why people like Kennedy get traction, while making statements that can directly lead to very large numbers of deaths and perfectly preventable outcomes.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > can directly lead to very large numbers of deaths and perfectly preventable outcomes For perspective, Kennedy is primarying Biden. This is crime bill Biden. Biden, during whose VP stint we built those concentration camps on the Mexican border. Biden who continues the droning of civilians. Etc. Which of the two caused more "preventable outcomes?" Somehow, I'm more concerned with incarceration and killing than I am about censoring speech.
- curtis3389 3y ago
  Joe Rogan is Gwyneth Paltrow is Alex Jones is ... They're just moral-less entertainers trying to sell you snake oil on the internet

olalonde 3y ago

Strange coincidence, I just watched another interview of him on YouTube[0]. It just seems to me that he is worried about regulatory capture and the lack of longer term studies of certain vaccines. Personally, I'm far more bothered by platforms policing information than misinformation. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqtONE93APQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqtONE93APQ

dekhn 3y ago
If he was truly operating in good faith and also believed what he's saying, you'd think that he'd do a better job of articulating his ideas rather than sort of looking like a conspiracy nut. Speaking intelligently goes a long way to helping convince people.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deweller 3y ago

Why is vaccine misinformation singled out by YouTube? You can't tell me there isn't tons of misinformation on other topics, even harmful topics, that gets uploaded and viewed every day. Where does it end? Why should YouTube get to decide what is correct and what is misleading information on every topic? The job of content moderation should be separated from the platform provider.

curtis3389 3y ago
It got singled out in 2021 to help reduce mass deaths from the pandemic.

spaceman_2020 3y ago

The idea that vaccines are 100% always safe is absolutely absurd No such thing in nature or science that's 100% safe. It's okay if someone wants to talk about the edge cases that result in failure.

ahahahahah 3y ago
What does that have to do with anything? Are you just living in a fantasy world? It would be great if you stick to discussing or criticizing actual policies instead of whatever made up shit you imagined.
- stringfood 3y ago
  [dead]