6 ms·

At the time, YouTube said: “Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.” [1] which, in my opini

At the time, YouTube said: “Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.” [1] which, in my opinion, is a pretty extreme stance to take, especially considering that the WHO contradicted itself many times during the pandemic. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586

hyperhopper 1y ago
The united states also said not to buy masks and that they were ineffective during the pandemic. Placing absolute trust in these organizations and restricting freedom of speech based on that is a very bootlicking, anti-freedom stance
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Yeah they burned a lot of trust with that, for sure.
  - lisbbb 1y ago
    They burned it beyond down to the ground and below. And many of you on here willfully continue to trust them and argue vehemently against people who try to tell you the actual truth of the matter. RFK Jr. is a flawed human being, but he's doing some good work in unwinding some of the web of lies we live under right now.
    - alphabettsy 1y ago
      He’s just bringing different lies with new sponsors.
    - aeternum 1y ago
      It's good RFK is more willing to question things but he seems just as guilty when it comes to spinning webs of lies. If we think tylenol might cause autism why doesn't he run/fund a nice clean and large randomized controlled trial? Instead he spreads conjecture based on papers with extremely weak evidence.
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  Fauci was trying to prevent a run on masks, which he believed were needed by the health care workers. So he probably justified his lie to the US to himself because it was for the "greater good" (The ends justify the means is not my view BTW). It turns out that masks ARE largely ineffective at preventing CoViD infection. It's amazing how many studies have come up with vastly different results. https://egc.yale.edu/research/largest-study-masks-and-covid-19-demonstrates-their-effectiveness-real-world https://egc.yale.edu/research/largest-study-masks-and-covid-... (Before you tell me that the story I cited above says the opposite, look at the effectiveness percentages they claim for each case.) There's also this: https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1970565993169588579 https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1970565993169588579
  - lisbbb 1y ago
    I didn't want to be the one to have to say it, but neither masks nor social distancing had any scientific backing at all. It was all made up, completely made up. The saddest thing I see all the time is the poor souls STILL wearing masks in 2025 for no reason. I don't care how immunocompromised they are, the mask isn't doing anything to prevent viral infection at all. They might help against pollen. I also can't believe how many doctors and nurses at my wife's cancer clinic wear masks all the damn time even though they are not in a surgical enviornment. It's all been foisted upon them by the management of those clinics and the management is completely insane and nobody speaks up about it because it's their job if they do, so the isanity just keeps rolling on and on and it is utterly dehumanizing and demoralizing. If a cancer patient wants to wear a mask because it affords them some tiny comfort, then fine, but that is purely psychological. I've seen it over and over and over because I've been at numerous hospitals this past year trying to help my wife survive a cancer that I think Pfizer may be to blame for.
    - D-Machine 1y ago
      Basically, yes. However, if we make a distinction between respirators (e.g. N95 mask) and masks (including "surgical" masks, which don't really have a meaningfully better FFE than cloth masks), then at least respirators offer some protection to the wearer, provided they also still minimize contact. But, in keeping with this distinction, yes, masks were never seriously scientifically supported. It is incredibly disheartening to see mask mandates still in cancer wards, despite these being mandates for (objectively useless) cloth/surgical masks.
- dakial1 1y ago
  I think the problem is that apparently some people discovered there is a profitable business model in spreading misinformation, so a trustful (even if not always right), non malicious, reference of information might be needed. But who watches the watchmen?
danparsonson 1y ago
> the WHO contradicted itself many times during the pandemic Did they? I remember them revising their guidance, which seems like something one would expect during an emerging crisis, but I don't remember them directly contradicting themselves.
- rogerrogerr 1y ago
  As super low hanging fruit: June 8, 2020: WHO: Data suggests it's "very rare" for coronavirus to spread through asymptomatics [0] June 9, 2020: WHO expert backtracks after saying asymptomatic transmission 'very rare' [1] 0: https://www.axios.com/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-asymptomatic-patients?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.axios.com/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-asymptomati... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/who-expert-backtracks-after-saying-asymptomatic-transmission-very-rare?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/who-expert-bac... Of course, if we just take the most recent thing they said as "revised guidance", I guess it's impossible for them to contradict themselves. Just rapidly re-re-re-revised guidance.
  - 1oooqooq 1y ago
    they also changed the symptoms definitions, so ...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - danparsonson 1y ago
      So as researchers learned more about COVID the WHO should've just ignored any new findings and stuck to their initial guidance? This is absurd.
      - 1oooqooq 1y ago
        no and that was my point. parent connect was stuck on one change and ignoring the other, when it makes perfect sense when you see all changes
sterlind 1y ago
it was an extreme time, but yes, probably the most authoritarian action I've seen social media take. misinformation is a real and worsening problem, but censorship makes conspiracies flourish, and establishes platforms as arbiters of truth. that "truth" will shift with the political tides. IMO we need to teach kids how to identify misinformation in school. maybe by creating fake articles, mixing them with real articles and having students track down sources and identify flaws. critical thinking lessons.
- adiabatichottub 1y ago
  As I recall from my school days, in Social Studies class there were a set of "Critical Thinking" questions at the end of every chapter in the textbook. Never once were we assigned any of those questions.
  - cultofmetatron 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - Jensson 1y ago
      You do realize Arabs also massacred a lot of Jews at the same time? Both sides were absolutely abhorrent at the time, it was war between quickly assembled militias and civilians fighting for survival, that is never going to end well. Example of Arabs lynching Jews, they started killing each other before the partition happened, so everyone knew it would be all out war after the British left: > Arab workers stormed the refinery armed with tools and metal rods, beating 39[d] Jewish workers to death and wounding 49. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre
      - margalabargala 1y ago
        If you're going to take any conflict in the Middle East up to and including present day, and go back and forth in time to see which group "started it", you'll run out of written record first. There's always an earlier counterexample atrocity that the other side did.
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
Don't forget that they ban-hammered anyone who advanced the lab leak theory because a global entity was pulling the strings at the WHO. I first heard about Wuhan in January of 2020 from multiple Chinese nationals who were talking about the leak story they were seeing in uncensored Chinese media and adamant that the state media story was BS. As soon as it blew up by March, Western media was manipulated into playing the bigotry angle to suppress any discussion of what may have happened.
- potsandpans 1y ago
  I called this out in this thread and was immediately downvoted
- cmilton 1y ago
  Because that is a bold claim to make. There is no proof of a lab leak and evidence leads to the wet market as the source. There is a debate out there for 100k to prove this. Check it out.
  - potsandpans 1y ago
    The topic at hand is not whether it's a bold claim to make. The question is: should organizations that control a large portion of the world's communication channels have the ability to unilaterally define the tone and timber of a dialog surrounding current events? To the people zealously downvoting all of these replies: defend yourselves. What about this is not worthy of conversation? I'm not saying that I support lab leak. The observation is that anyone that discussed the lab leak hypothesis on social media had content removed and potentially were banned. I am fundamentally against that. If the observation more generally is that sentiments should be censored that can risk peoples lives by influencing the decisions they make, then let me ask you this: Should Charlie Kirk have been censored? If he were, he wouldn't have been assassinated.
    - blooalien 1y ago
      > "Should Charlie Kirk have been censored? If he were, he wouldn't have been assassinated." On the other hand, if he were, then whoever censored him might have just as easily become the target of some other crazy, because that appears to be the world we live in now. Something's gotta change. This whole "us vs them" situation is just agitating the most extreme folks right over the edge of sanity into "Crazy Town". Wish we could get back to bein' that whole "One Nation Under God" "Great Melting Pot" "United States" they used to blather on about in grade-school back in the day, but that ship appears to have done sailed and then promptly sunk to the bottom... :(

hyperhopper 1y ago

The united states also said not to buy masks and that they were ineffective during the pandemic. Placing absolute trust in these organizations and restricting freedom of speech based on that is a very bootlicking, anti-freedom stance

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Yeah they burned a lot of trust with that, for sure.
- lisbbb 1y ago
  They burned it beyond down to the ground and below. And many of you on here willfully continue to trust them and argue vehemently against people who try to tell you the actual truth of the matter. RFK Jr. is a flawed human being, but he's doing some good work in unwinding some of the web of lies we live under right now.
  - alphabettsy 1y ago
    He’s just bringing different lies with new sponsors.
  - aeternum 1y ago
    It's good RFK is more willing to question things but he seems just as guilty when it comes to spinning webs of lies. If we think tylenol might cause autism why doesn't he run/fund a nice clean and large randomized controlled trial? Instead he spreads conjecture based on papers with extremely weak evidence.
anonymousiam 1y ago
Fauci was trying to prevent a run on masks, which he believed were needed by the health care workers. So he probably justified his lie to the US to himself because it was for the "greater good" (The ends justify the means is not my view BTW). It turns out that masks ARE largely ineffective at preventing CoViD infection. It's amazing how many studies have come up with vastly different results. https://egc.yale.edu/research/largest-study-masks-and-covid-19-demonstrates-their-effectiveness-real-world https://egc.yale.edu/research/largest-study-masks-and-covid-... (Before you tell me that the story I cited above says the opposite, look at the effectiveness percentages they claim for each case.) There's also this: https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1970565993169588579 https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1970565993169588579
- lisbbb 1y ago
  I didn't want to be the one to have to say it, but neither masks nor social distancing had any scientific backing at all. It was all made up, completely made up. The saddest thing I see all the time is the poor souls STILL wearing masks in 2025 for no reason. I don't care how immunocompromised they are, the mask isn't doing anything to prevent viral infection at all. They might help against pollen. I also can't believe how many doctors and nurses at my wife's cancer clinic wear masks all the damn time even though they are not in a surgical enviornment. It's all been foisted upon them by the management of those clinics and the management is completely insane and nobody speaks up about it because it's their job if they do, so the isanity just keeps rolling on and on and it is utterly dehumanizing and demoralizing. If a cancer patient wants to wear a mask because it affords them some tiny comfort, then fine, but that is purely psychological. I've seen it over and over and over because I've been at numerous hospitals this past year trying to help my wife survive a cancer that I think Pfizer may be to blame for.
  - D-Machine 1y ago
    Basically, yes. However, if we make a distinction between respirators (e.g. N95 mask) and masks (including "surgical" masks, which don't really have a meaningfully better FFE than cloth masks), then at least respirators offer some protection to the wearer, provided they also still minimize contact. But, in keeping with this distinction, yes, masks were never seriously scientifically supported. It is incredibly disheartening to see mask mandates still in cancer wards, despite these being mandates for (objectively useless) cloth/surgical masks.
dakial1 1y ago
I think the problem is that apparently some people discovered there is a profitable business model in spreading misinformation, so a trustful (even if not always right), non malicious, reference of information might be needed. But who watches the watchmen?

danparsonson 1y ago

> the WHO contradicted itself many times during the pandemic Did they? I remember them revising their guidance, which seems like something one would expect during an emerging crisis, but I don't remember them directly contradicting themselves.

rogerrogerr 1y ago
As super low hanging fruit: June 8, 2020: WHO: Data suggests it's "very rare" for coronavirus to spread through asymptomatics [0] June 9, 2020: WHO expert backtracks after saying asymptomatic transmission 'very rare' [1] 0: https://www.axios.com/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-asymptomatic-patients?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.axios.com/2020/06/08/who-coronavirus-asymptomati... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/who-expert-backtracks-after-saying-asymptomatic-transmission-very-rare?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/who-expert-bac... Of course, if we just take the most recent thing they said as "revised guidance", I guess it's impossible for them to contradict themselves. Just rapidly re-re-re-revised guidance.
- 1oooqooq 1y ago
  they also changed the symptoms definitions, so ...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - danparsonson 1y ago
    So as researchers learned more about COVID the WHO should've just ignored any new findings and stuck to their initial guidance? This is absurd.
    - 1oooqooq 1y ago
      no and that was my point. parent connect was stuck on one change and ignoring the other, when it makes perfect sense when you see all changes

sterlind 1y ago

it was an extreme time, but yes, probably the most authoritarian action I've seen social media take. misinformation is a real and worsening problem, but censorship makes conspiracies flourish, and establishes platforms as arbiters of truth. that "truth" will shift with the political tides. IMO we need to teach kids how to identify misinformation in school. maybe by creating fake articles, mixing them with real articles and having students track down sources and identify flaws. critical thinking lessons.

adiabatichottub 1y ago
As I recall from my school days, in Social Studies class there were a set of "Critical Thinking" questions at the end of every chapter in the textbook. Never once were we assigned any of those questions.
- cultofmetatron 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Jensson 1y ago
    You do realize Arabs also massacred a lot of Jews at the same time? Both sides were absolutely abhorrent at the time, it was war between quickly assembled militias and civilians fighting for survival, that is never going to end well. Example of Arabs lynching Jews, they started killing each other before the partition happened, so everyone knew it would be all out war after the British left: > Arab workers stormed the refinery armed with tools and metal rods, beating 39[d] Jewish workers to death and wounding 49. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      If you're going to take any conflict in the Middle East up to and including present day, and go back and forth in time to see which group "started it", you'll run out of written record first. There's always an earlier counterexample atrocity that the other side did.

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago

Don't forget that they ban-hammered anyone who advanced the lab leak theory because a global entity was pulling the strings at the WHO. I first heard about Wuhan in January of 2020 from multiple Chinese nationals who were talking about the leak story they were seeing in uncensored Chinese media and adamant that the state media story was BS. As soon as it blew up by March, Western media was manipulated into playing the bigotry angle to suppress any discussion of what may have happened.

potsandpans 1y ago
I called this out in this thread and was immediately downvoted
cmilton 1y ago
Because that is a bold claim to make. There is no proof of a lab leak and evidence leads to the wet market as the source. There is a debate out there for 100k to prove this. Check it out.
- potsandpans 1y ago
  The topic at hand is not whether it's a bold claim to make. The question is: should organizations that control a large portion of the world's communication channels have the ability to unilaterally define the tone and timber of a dialog surrounding current events? To the people zealously downvoting all of these replies: defend yourselves. What about this is not worthy of conversation? I'm not saying that I support lab leak. The observation is that anyone that discussed the lab leak hypothesis on social media had content removed and potentially were banned. I am fundamentally against that. If the observation more generally is that sentiments should be censored that can risk peoples lives by influencing the decisions they make, then let me ask you this: Should Charlie Kirk have been censored? If he were, he wouldn't have been assassinated.
  - blooalien 1y ago
    > "Should Charlie Kirk have been censored? If he were, he wouldn't have been assassinated." On the other hand, if he were, then whoever censored him might have just as easily become the target of some other crazy, because that appears to be the world we live in now. Something's gotta change. This whole "us vs them" situation is just agitating the most extreme folks right over the edge of sanity into "Crazy Town". Wish we could get back to bein' that whole "One Nation Under God" "Great Melting Pot" "United States" they used to blather on about in grade-school back in the day, but that ship appears to have done sailed and then promptly sunk to the bottom... :(