back
3 comments
I guess the bigger question about this is what possible reasons to remove there could be. The video itself is pretty famous now and available in many places.
It says right in the article:

"...noted relevant comments regarding censorship that YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki had recently made.

"Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy ... [removal] is another really important part of of our policy," Wojcicki reportedly said."

By that logic can they remove videos claiming masks are effective at protecting yourself and society from the virus? Because I seem to recall the WHO (or I think it was the CDC?) blatantly lying about the efficacy of masks in order to keep them available to health professionals.

I think this underscores why I'm so uncomfortable with YouTube doing censorship (or anyone doing it). The official narrative is not always right.

In fact anytime we have a new discovery in science it starts out in contrary to the official accepted explanation and only gradually and often grudgingly gains acceptance over time. If you silence dissenting voices you also silence progress. Which is maybe why China struggles to innovate compared to the West.

My understanding has always been that good science is supposed to be falsifiable. If the new rules are science can only be dictated by authoritative institutions and cannot be publicly questioned, is it still science?
The primary issue is that "dictating" has been implemented with owning the channels and making bad decisions with the channels consensus process. The Internet needs to be reworked to get rid of these large corporations being able to own channels, but Hell if I know how to do it.
>By that logic can they remove videos claiming masks are effective at protecting yourself and society from the virus?

Cry wolf when this actually happens. I try not to be dismissive, but the repeated harping about masks strikes me as a lack of original thought at best and a coordinated smear campaign at face value.

We get it: the WHO should've recommended masks full-throatedly. But your interpretation that a YouTube policy will be applied maliciously without any justification for why doesn't convince me.

I doubt it will be, or least I hope not. But at some point they'll cross the line, they may have already done so and I just don't know about it.

I don't like censorship. It's dangerous. It's the tool of choice of authoritarians everywhere. Free speech, even of opinions we find distasteful or downright ugly, is still worth upholding.

I want to add that hate speech is a different thing, but where one draws the line there is also a slippery slope.

Look at deplatforming of people like Steven Pinker or Jordan Peterson to see how actually quite moderate, well reasoned, well spoken people are getting censored. That's a disturbing trend.

Because I seem to recall the WHO (or I think it was the CDC?) blatantly lying about the efficacy of masks in order to keep them available to health professionals.

WHO is still lying, CDC has done a 180 and now recommends masks. So I suppose we should expect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPx1yqvJgf4 to get taken down anytime now.

Good; I just reported it for “harmful and dangerous acts.”
That's speculation by an uninvolved person, not a YouTube statement.
Wojcicki seems substantially quoted here. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some implication you're attempting to make, would you like to clarify?

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586

Sure, I didn't express myself clearly enough sorry. That WHO quote is hers and therefore that of Youtube. But it was a general remark made before the removal or even the creation of this video. The article in this submission however [and to some extent the comment above] seems to imply that her WHO remark gives the reason for the removal.

Now it can of course still be that the WHO reasoning will at a later time be officially quoted for the removal of this video, but that is pure speculation. And also it would be a huge stretch. There is no official reason given for the removal.

Thanks.
My bad, in re-reading your comment I think I misunderstood your point.
Why trust the WHO when they are being defunded in the first place? After mismanaging and trying to cover things up?

Sounds like YouTube is blindly following the WHO. I am so sick of big tech and all the censorship, privacy invasion, etc. Wish there was more alternatives but everyone will flock to what’s popular...

Wish I had the resources to start alternatives, maybe headquarters in Texas where I bet they have a more freedom mindset compared to all the Californian tech companies that’s just a bunch of followers instead of leaders.

Seems all the stuff they preach about connecting the world, accessing all the worlds information and diversity is just some sort of double speak. Like censoring Alex Jones, sure people disagree with him maybe Just some things or even everything he says but if you don’t agree with him, don’t watch his channel, don’t follow him. This whole deplatformig thing is like something from 1984.

I enjoy using YouTube for tech talks, tutorials, following vloggers but a lot of stuff about YouTube is disappointment... and then don’t even get me started mentioning all the automated copyright stuff that doesn’t even consider fair use or is abused.

> Alex Jones, sure people disagree with him maybe Just some things or even everything he says but if you don’t agree with him, don’t watch his channel, don’t follow him

Alex Jones was successfully sued because of his videos and repeatedly warned. YouTube like any business has a right to legally protect themselves. If YT continues to host Jones's content they could be held legally liable. I'm no fan of YouTube but they're clearly in the right in Alex Jones's case.

Yeah, I don't agree with anything Alex Jones says, but I do think he should be allowed to say his own perspectives on things. Just used him as an example.

I never really watched his full shows which is a few hours daily I think. Don't really have the attention span to listen to all the people who call in and stuff. I seen just clips and hilights here and there. He recently built a new website which is sorta like his own little private YouTube.

I'd imagine YouTube would be covered under Section 230 immunity would cover them.

Personally I think as long as something isn't illegal, let them publish it... However I bet if you had that policy your hosting company would shut you down unless you owned your own datacenter and peering agreements...

But I heard on YouTube you can't even say the C word right now without the algorithm messing with your videos... Like some travel vlogger was talking about how it disrupted his travel plans, so he called it the current unicorn instead. Not some conspiracy theory video either, just telling his true story. So I think YouTube is going overboard right now with their censorship... and more and more censorship, people start censoring themselves and are scared to speak out about things... I think this is a dangerous and dark path we're going down - regardless if people think there's some conspiracy with a global elite or deep state or whatever you want to call it is apart of it or not...

what do you do if alex jones is ruining your life because your kids died in a school shooting?

that guy should be in jail.

Because YouTube is already known as one of the worst cancers on the internet, and has allowed the stupid to herd and multiply.

Flat Earth. Pizzagate. Soros conspiracies. Chemtrails. Anti-vaccers. These were all laughable fringe things that the disturbed came up with. Then YouTube came along and suddenly the stupid were discovering one another, confirming each other's idiocy.

YouTube is probably a little tired of this. The fringe can of course create their own video sites, just as they made their own "Twitter" and their own "Reddit" (all abysmal failures when they learn how miserable and deplorable they are).

LOL, dang -the enabler of right-wing asshats- has hellbanned me. ROFL. Eat a big ol' donkey dick, dang. You have turned HN into a AGW denying shithole.

No one banned you. Your comment was affected by user flags and software. Rightly so, as you've been trolling up a storm (or trying to), and using multiple accounts to do it.

Obviously, though, if you keep posting like this then we will have to ban you. If we don't, people will complain about us privileging you, as we ban other accounts for less and you're breaking the site guidelines badly: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Comments such as "dang -the enabler of right-wing asshats", "HN is a cesspool of anti-intellectual MAGA blowhards" (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hn_check), "only far-right anti-science, anti-intellectual noise" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014140) are helpful in a way. They go nicely with "The mods here are radical liberals", "left-wing propaganda", "dang is an SJW cunt", etc. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920602) and are handy for balancing the binary tree (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22784216).

This version contains an important piece at the end, additional 3 minutes: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cmjYRJXKixY
Agreed. These people own several urgent care clinics and are suffering financially. I don't understand how much they understand about how misleading they are being (they could be foolish enough to believe their own mistakes) but it is clear that they are suffering financially and are trying to figure out a way to stay afloat.
That's the exact opposite of what's happening:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fac...

No, urgent cares don't have patients on ventilators.

But yes, there are some very perverse incentives in medicine.

Wow, the last three minutes are very illustrative! Just watch for yourself.

https://youtu.be/cmjYRJXKixY?t=3761

"If you stomp on our freedoms, that has one ending, and that's violence", after talking about gun stores selling out of ammunition.

Something tells me the medical angle isn't the only one these guys are pushing.

That's more than reasonable discussion going on there, what a weird decision by YouTube.