YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation(foxnews.com)
foxnews.com
YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/youtube-deletes-rappers-lets-go-brandon-song-medical-misinformation
792 comments
I have been absolutely delighted by Let's go Brandon, but annoyed that it's always Trump as the alternative. I agree with the person in this thread who said there is a lot more discontent outside of Trump’s contingency. I’ve been really shocked how powerful rampantly repressive neoliberal corporate takeover is if you just sprinkle a little identity politics on top. Seriously, the same people who were critiquing globalization, pharma and bad trade deals, and supporting free-speech are... where? These issues used to be firmly the territory of the left. What’s... left? Now anyone questioning power can’t even get an interview anywhere but Christian, libertarian and conservative media. my question to those who still think Trump is the great hope is: what on earth makes you think that man is going to do anything substantively different about those issues? I feel like it’s time to stop talking about the office of the presidency entirely.
No, it’s not because that. It barely has a “verse”. They just don’t like the traction it’s getting and the anti narrative it promotes.
If it were F@ck Donald (whatever) and everything else the same it would still be up.
The rest is nothing but naked excuse.
There are so many medically misleading things on YouTube —just look at dieting. They cause harm. Let me see them pull those.
Nah, they won’t.
Honestly, I think “Pravda” would be proud of the gall.
If it were F@ck Donald (whatever) and everything else the same it would still be up.
The rest is nothing but naked excuse.
There are so many medically misleading things on YouTube —just look at dieting. They cause harm. Let me see them pull those.
Nah, they won’t.
Honestly, I think “Pravda” would be proud of the gall.
[deleted]
Its a bad song and I don't want to listen to it to get all the lyrics. [0]
>Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it, ayy, ayy (They just planned it)
>Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
That is all I can see as far as "medical information" goes. What a joke. This song is bad, it would have fallen off the charts if they just let things go.
[0] https://mychords.net/en/bryson-gray/157414-bryson-gray-lets-...
>Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it, ayy, ayy (They just planned it)
>Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
That is all I can see as far as "medical information" goes. What a joke. This song is bad, it would have fallen off the charts if they just let things go.
[0] https://mychords.net/en/bryson-gray/157414-bryson-gray-lets-...
All they had to do was sit tight, leave it alone and let it be forgotten. Countless others and I would never have seen it. Thanks to Google's censorship, people will now know about this song.
Yeah they're about to feel the full Streisand Effect.
You don't have to listen to the song. You don't get to tell others what they can or cannot listen too.
I should have worded my post better. I dont want to listen to the song (again) to find out exactly what was said.
After the reading the news article in full, I found the video and watched it once in full. After that, I searched and found the lyrics to the video. I'm over explaining, but I'm rate limited.
I dont see much that would support the reason YouTube gave for banning it.
FWIW, I am against censorship.
After the reading the news article in full, I found the video and watched it once in full. After that, I searched and found the lyrics to the video. I'm over explaining, but I'm rate limited.
I dont see much that would support the reason YouTube gave for banning it.
FWIW, I am against censorship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NVxdD_qwJ8
Check this song out, it gives practical advice for carrying out burglaries. People have screamed and kicked but YouTube won't remove the song.
Check this song out, it gives practical advice for carrying out burglaries. People have screamed and kicked but YouTube won't remove the song.
>Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
Thing is, if I remember rightly Biden did spread outright misinformation that falsely claimed the vaccine was a lot more effective than it actually is using his platform as president, and got checked on it by the BBC (though maybe not the mainstream US media)...
Thing is, if I remember rightly Biden did spread outright misinformation that falsely claimed the vaccine was a lot more effective than it actually is using his platform as president, and got checked on it by the BBC (though maybe not the mainstream US media)...
I also remember during the debates Trump was talking up the vaccine and Bidens says something like "And who is going to take it?"
It was rather cool to be anti vaccine 1 year ago. Now its verboten.
It was rather cool to be anti vaccine 1 year ago. Now its verboten.
Boy am I tired of partisan politics.
Amen. I just wish that all politicians would remain more consistent in their views, or at the very least admit that they previously said the opposite but have since changed their mind.
I do not intend for this post to be anti Biden. Trump is also a hypocrite, just not on his pro covid vaccine stance.
I do not intend for this post to be anti Biden. Trump is also a hypocrite, just not on his pro covid vaccine stance.
I have some interest in politics, and I've decided that I'll be open about public vs personal views. For example:
"I personally believe X, but my constituents overwhelmingly support Y, so I will be voting for Y."
"I personally believe X, but my constituents overwhelmingly support Y, so I will be voting for Y."
You should also be open about when you choose to disagree - "I know my constituents believe Y, and I see their arguments. I have spent much time evaluating it and assigned some of my best staff to make arguments for and against, and will be voting X."
Agree. At least being honest about it is worth more than any measure of optics.
This aged poorly given information we have about breakthrough rates.
anyone who thinks this is planned can never have been involved in any form of government
I see this argument a lot. The counter-argument is surely that not everybody involved in malfaescence / corruption / conpsiracy has to be in on it [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Right? We (the US) have enough trouble planning meaningful infrastructure in our communities, let alone a global conspiracy in order to bring about some new world order, apparently coordinated with every other world government.
But, I’ve heard the “planned” argument levied against the CCP, and that it was a bio weapon, and this was a planned release. That argument, while still far fetched, is at least in the realm of possibility for me.
But, I’ve heard the “planned” argument levied against the CCP, and that it was a bio weapon, and this was a planned release. That argument, while still far fetched, is at least in the realm of possibility for me.
Given that their ai have spotted this that is actually quite good. But yes it is a joke.
catawbasam(4)
DaveExeter(5)
Were there other lyrics besides "Let's Go Brandon"? If those contained disinfo, perhaps that is why.
> Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it
probably that part?
probably that part?
YouTube's bar for "medical misinfo" ladies and gentlemen...
What is the substance of your argument: that the "pandemic" is not a medical matter, or that "ain't real" is not misinfo?
That it does not even qualify as “info”…
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"
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"
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
> 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?
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?
I dispute that disinformation or not is a reason for censoring it.
And I dispute the repute of those labeling things "disinformation", specifically.
And I dispute the repute of those labeling things "disinformation", specifically.
I think it's childish to act like you're being wronged, and threatening a defiant tantrum "this is Stalinist bullshit, keep saying it, louder" in response to someone else deciding not to host some disinformation. Are you truly the victim today, in this pandemic?
He is being wronged, as are you. Each and every time a company takes freedom away from their users they are being wronged, and when the company is as big as Youtube then we all get wronged. The "defiant tantrum" is simply taking the stance that that is not admisible, how you consider that to be childish behavior I don't even know.
>Are you truly the victim today, in this pandemic?
So give up freedoms, for the common good. Now that's rich.
>Are you truly the victim today, in this pandemic?
So give up freedoms, for the common good. Now that's rich.
You don't have the freedom to murder, enslave, or kidnap. I don't think you should have the freedom to spread a deadly disease.
Especially since COVID-19 spreads without symptoms, we have to prioritize prevention.
Besides, we've had our freedoms eroded time and again since the World Trade Centre attacks. Why are some Americans choosing now to draw a line in the sand? Because previously the laws were targeting brown skinned people. And now there's a Democrat in charge, so Republicans want to cause strife and division to get elected in 2022 and 2024.
Especially since COVID-19 spreads without symptoms, we have to prioritize prevention.
Besides, we've had our freedoms eroded time and again since the World Trade Centre attacks. Why are some Americans choosing now to draw a line in the sand? Because previously the laws were targeting brown skinned people. And now there's a Democrat in charge, so Republicans want to cause strife and division to get elected in 2022 and 2024.
I've been saying things like this since 1991 and before; so its not just "choosing now to draw a line in the sand". Back then it was "Politically Correct is just being sensitive, it's nothing like censorship" ...
The goals keep creeping but the justifications are always the same: People have to be saved from themselves!
The goals keep creeping but the justifications are always the same: People have to be saved from themselves!
Agreed, it's never absolute, it's about if the measure that curtains freedom is appropriate to the threat. My personal belief is that in 2021, taking off your shoes at airport security isn't necessary (but I'll comply, of course), but refusing to host COVID disinformation is a good idea.
This attempt to make COVID control measure into a scare story about a slippery slope where the "freedom" is vanishing over time is IMHO wrong (COVID control measures are not that) and misdirecting (pay attention to what FaceBook does, voter suppression, etc, if real examples that slope is what you are looking for).
This attempt to make COVID control measure into a scare story about a slippery slope where the "freedom" is vanishing over time is IMHO wrong (COVID control measures are not that) and misdirecting (pay attention to what FaceBook does, voter suppression, etc, if real examples that slope is what you are looking for).
It's all about the effects of what is said. Fight the Power and Fuck the Police were published when there were no social networks around; The post-2K Web changed everything, and the chances of having more people rioting because some rapper want to become their idol (gigs, books, TV appearances, etc) isn't that dim.
If I wrote a rap song with "stick an artichoke in your butt" and magically a hundred people follow the advice and hurt themselves, someone for sure will at least attempt to censor my song. The imitation problem has been with us for thousands years, but social media made it a lot worse by dramatically augmenting the audience, then moving a lot faster than laws, and allowing some grey zones where a law prohibiting this and that would be too draconian and no law makes similar scenarios very possible. That's where we should be the ones who censor ourselves when we suspect that someone could be damaged by our words. That rapper didn't, because he pursuits fame and money, and Fox News by jumping in his defense acted exactly as one would expect from a source that has nothing to do with journalism.
If I wrote a rap song with "stick an artichoke in your butt" and magically a hundred people follow the advice and hurt themselves, someone for sure will at least attempt to censor my song. The imitation problem has been with us for thousands years, but social media made it a lot worse by dramatically augmenting the audience, then moving a lot faster than laws, and allowing some grey zones where a law prohibiting this and that would be too draconian and no law makes similar scenarios very possible. That's where we should be the ones who censor ourselves when we suspect that someone could be damaged by our words. That rapper didn't, because he pursuits fame and money, and Fox News by jumping in his defense acted exactly as one would expect from a source that has nothing to do with journalism.
Categorizing something this broad and nonchalant from a joke rap video as medical misinformation is an obvious wrong-think power grab.
I think the full lyric here is actually "pandemic ain't real, they just planned it."
The meaning and intent of the lyrics are open to interpretation, but I think the latter part of the lyric implies political commentary rather than medical commentary.
Also, I think we need a tighter definition of "medical misinformation." Is it to promote anything that is medically harmful? Well, then why can musicians sing endlessly about drugs and unsafe sex? What about videos on non-fda regulated vitamins and minerals, or weight loss solutions? Surely most doctors wouldn't advise taking recreational drugs, or jumping on to the latest weight loss magic pill.
And yes, YouTube is a private enterprise. But we can still, as a society, openly dialog on what we think is wrong with their practices.
The meaning and intent of the lyrics are open to interpretation, but I think the latter part of the lyric implies political commentary rather than medical commentary.
Also, I think we need a tighter definition of "medical misinformation." Is it to promote anything that is medically harmful? Well, then why can musicians sing endlessly about drugs and unsafe sex? What about videos on non-fda regulated vitamins and minerals, or weight loss solutions? Surely most doctors wouldn't advise taking recreational drugs, or jumping on to the latest weight loss magic pill.
And yes, YouTube is a private enterprise. But we can still, as a society, openly dialog on what we think is wrong with their practices.
[deleted]
It's a song, not a scientific journal article.
People spread misinformation through memes or image macros. Why should songs be considered differently?
There's a segment of the US population that believes and spreads the harmful misinformation in memes and YouTube videos. That's all well and good when talking about aliens building pyramids or whatever. But currently we have this same segment of the population refusing to get vaccinated, mask up, wash their hands, etc etc. Those actions are harmful to society as a whole and should be treated like the attacks they are.
As someone with lung issues, it angers me deeply that there's millions of Americans who couldn't give the tiniest shit to take actions that might save my life.
There's a segment of the US population that believes and spreads the harmful misinformation in memes and YouTube videos. That's all well and good when talking about aliens building pyramids or whatever. But currently we have this same segment of the population refusing to get vaccinated, mask up, wash their hands, etc etc. Those actions are harmful to society as a whole and should be treated like the attacks they are.
As someone with lung issues, it angers me deeply that there's millions of Americans who couldn't give the tiniest shit to take actions that might save my life.
> we have this same segment of the population refusing to get vaccinated
As is their right. People should be able to make informed decisions about whether they get an injection. Especially right now in this pandemic. We're still studying the vaccines and their effects on people. Nobody knows for sure their risk/benefit profiles yet, there hasn't been enough time to draw definitive conclusions. It's entirely possible that these vaccines have risks we don't know about, or are only worth using on certain populations such as the elderly.
People who decide to take vaccines need to do so informed of these facts. Misleading the public about this will only strengthen conspiracy theories and lead to even worse outcomes.
> mask up, wash their hands, etc etc.
Yeah, I agree that's stupid. There's no risk to washing hands or wearing masks. Nothing wrong with refusing to associate with people who won't even practice basic hygiene.
> Those actions are harmful to society as a whole and should be treated like the attacks they are.
They may be harmful but that doesn't mean people should be oppressed because of it.
As is their right. People should be able to make informed decisions about whether they get an injection. Especially right now in this pandemic. We're still studying the vaccines and their effects on people. Nobody knows for sure their risk/benefit profiles yet, there hasn't been enough time to draw definitive conclusions. It's entirely possible that these vaccines have risks we don't know about, or are only worth using on certain populations such as the elderly.
People who decide to take vaccines need to do so informed of these facts. Misleading the public about this will only strengthen conspiracy theories and lead to even worse outcomes.
> mask up, wash their hands, etc etc.
Yeah, I agree that's stupid. There's no risk to washing hands or wearing masks. Nothing wrong with refusing to associate with people who won't even practice basic hygiene.
> Those actions are harmful to society as a whole and should be treated like the attacks they are.
They may be harmful but that doesn't mean people should be oppressed because of it.
Comedy, Music, The Arts - things I don't want the ruling class of the day to suspend and police.
The parties go back and forth every so often - it used to be the conservatives who wanted to censor music, now its the liberals. Its tiring. I want off Mr. Bones Wild Ride.
The parties go back and forth every so often - it used to be the conservatives who wanted to censor music, now its the liberals. Its tiring. I want off Mr. Bones Wild Ride.
I only get my medical advice from rap music, so I for one am glad youtube has provided me with this safety net. I hope they target the misinfo on how to safely fuck hoes next - that could also use some correction.
The virus is real. "The pandemic" in popular culture includes both the actual virus and the response to it. "Ain't real" is also an incredibly interpret-able phrase. If somebody said to me "homosexuality isn't real" - I wouldn't think they meant nobody had ever had gay sex - I'd have to guess at their meaning, but it'd probably come out to something like "sexual preference isn't innate". Similarly, if somebody were to say to me that the pandemic wasn't real, I would understand that the concept they were trying to express is probably closer to the idea that the severity of government intervention or perhaps the intensity of media hype was unwarranted - not that the virus didn't exist. Whether or not the responses were appropriately sized aren't "medical" questions - they are political / sociological questions.
I'd prefer that, particularly in music, which has a rich history of slang, multiple meanings, and political commentary, we lean in the direction of permitting speech, to avoid censoring political commentary. In this particular case, when the chorus and title "Let's go Brandon" are CLEARLY political commentary, the chance that the work as a whole is political commentary (as opposed to "medical information") is further increased.
I'd prefer that, particularly in music, which has a rich history of slang, multiple meanings, and political commentary, we lean in the direction of permitting speech, to avoid censoring political commentary. In this particular case, when the chorus and title "Let's go Brandon" are CLEARLY political commentary, the chance that the work as a whole is political commentary (as opposed to "medical information") is further increased.
How does this apply to other rap songs? When they talk about killing people and selling drugs are we supposed to call the police?
Are we supposed to believe those lines as literally true as well?
I'm not much of a modern rap music person, however, by the 90s rap standards this doesn't seem that inflammatory.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Thanks for clarifying, makes sense.
"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?
How about I listen to what I like and you fry your fish elsewhere?
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.
_fat_santa(1)
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.
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.
> If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else.
YouTube has already done exactly this:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-...
YouTube has already done exactly this:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-...
In that video, Pierre Kory uses his credibility as a medical doctor, to claim "mountains of data have emerged from all, from many centers and countries around the world, showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick."
Later, Pierre Kory himself contracted Covid, from his daughter. Both of them had been on Ivermectin, obviously. He doesn't mention this publicly. Only thanks to someone who was watching closely do we now have proof this even happened.
So no, this isn't "in a very scientific manner." He creates a good illusion of being scientific, but he's not.
These are dangerous falsehoods, that are used by millions as part of their justification for not getting vaccinated, which allows the virus to continue spreading. YouTube isn't perfect, but they are making an attempt to compensate for all the lies that are spread on their platform and others. This is important during a crisis that has already killed 700,000 Americans. I get the "freedom of speech" thing, I really do. But Americans are still dying at a rate of 2 fully loaded 747s a day crashing, and YouTube would prefer not be contributing to that.
So I support YouTube's decision on that one.
Later, Pierre Kory himself contracted Covid, from his daughter. Both of them had been on Ivermectin, obviously. He doesn't mention this publicly. Only thanks to someone who was watching closely do we now have proof this even happened.
So no, this isn't "in a very scientific manner." He creates a good illusion of being scientific, but he's not.
These are dangerous falsehoods, that are used by millions as part of their justification for not getting vaccinated, which allows the virus to continue spreading. YouTube isn't perfect, but they are making an attempt to compensate for all the lies that are spread on their platform and others. This is important during a crisis that has already killed 700,000 Americans. I get the "freedom of speech" thing, I really do. But Americans are still dying at a rate of 2 fully loaded 747s a day crashing, and YouTube would prefer not be contributing to that.
So I support YouTube's decision on that one.
If YouTube did take down such information, then I would be inclined to agree they made a mistake.
But the example you gave doesn't help make your case, just the opposite, Dr. Kory's information indicating that Ivermectin is helpful in treating COVID is not scientific and the net result of his communication is de facto misinformation, and can definitely cause harm.
If this Doctor wants to put information up on his own, personal website, that's a different story. He's free to do that. YouTube has no obligation to carry those videos. His liberties are not infringed.
But the example you gave doesn't help make your case, just the opposite, Dr. Kory's information indicating that Ivermectin is helpful in treating COVID is not scientific and the net result of his communication is de facto misinformation, and can definitely cause harm.
If this Doctor wants to put information up on his own, personal website, that's a different story. He's free to do that. YouTube has no obligation to carry those videos. His liberties are not infringed.
> 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".
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".
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.
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.
> The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science.
CDC: Masks should be worn by children aged 2 and up: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-...
WHO: In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-children-and-ma...
ECDC: In primary schools, the use of face masks is recommended for teachers and other adults when physical distancing cannot be guaranteed, but it is not recommended for students: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/que...
Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
CDC: Masks should be worn by children aged 2 and up: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-...
WHO: In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-children-and-ma...
ECDC: In primary schools, the use of face masks is recommended for teachers and other adults when physical distancing cannot be guaranteed, but it is not recommended for students: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/que...
Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
You're having difficulty with reading comprehension it seems, as that is not the manner in which I applied the term 'consistent'.
WHO and CDC act in generally accordance with what we know i.e. 'consistent with the science'.
The science itself is of course fuzzy, moreover, your example ignores the fact that in different conditions (i.e. cultures, relative access to healthcare, % vaccinated), public policy is going to be different even if the science itself were clear.
So in varying conditions, it's reasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementations. Those implementations are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another.
This is not hard to understand, so it begs the question, what kind of person would make the conclusion:
"Different places have different public health policies, therefore these groups must be acting unscientifically"
We generally know what's going on, and have a good idea of what we don't know - so most of this inanity boils down to psychology, self awareness, antagonism, magical thinking etc.. The answer to our problems lies more in understanding why people believe 'QAnon' conspiracy theories than it does anything else.
WHO and CDC act in generally accordance with what we know i.e. 'consistent with the science'.
The science itself is of course fuzzy, moreover, your example ignores the fact that in different conditions (i.e. cultures, relative access to healthcare, % vaccinated), public policy is going to be different even if the science itself were clear.
So in varying conditions, it's reasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementations. Those implementations are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another.
This is not hard to understand, so it begs the question, what kind of person would make the conclusion:
"Different places have different public health policies, therefore these groups must be acting unscientifically"
We generally know what's going on, and have a good idea of what we don't know - so most of this inanity boils down to psychology, self awareness, antagonism, magical thinking etc.. The answer to our problems lies more in understanding why people believe 'QAnon' conspiracy theories than it does anything else.
> So in varying conditions, it's not unreasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementation which are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another.
Sure, but what we're discussing here is YouTube's single global standard that is being used to determine whether or not something is "misinformation" and should be prohibited on their platform.
You argued that what YouTube is doing is good, because they're following CDC and WHO guidelines. I gave you one example of where the WHO and the CDC and the ECDC are completely at odds with each other, so what should YouTube do in that case? Which science should they follow?
If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to force small children to wear masks, pointing out all the ways it is harmful for them, and talking about how little is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by most European viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the ECDC.
If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to re-open schools without mask mandates, pointing out the risk to teachers and staff, and talking about how much is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by many American viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the CDC.
Which video should be removed by YouTube for medical misinformation? The first? The second? Both? None? Or should YouTube apply different standards depending on your geolocation?
Sure, but what we're discussing here is YouTube's single global standard that is being used to determine whether or not something is "misinformation" and should be prohibited on their platform.
You argued that what YouTube is doing is good, because they're following CDC and WHO guidelines. I gave you one example of where the WHO and the CDC and the ECDC are completely at odds with each other, so what should YouTube do in that case? Which science should they follow?
If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to force small children to wear masks, pointing out all the ways it is harmful for them, and talking about how little is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by most European viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the ECDC.
If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to re-open schools without mask mandates, pointing out the risk to teachers and staff, and talking about how much is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by many American viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the CDC.
Which video should be removed by YouTube for medical misinformation? The first? The second? Both? None? Or should YouTube apply different standards depending on your geolocation?
> The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science.
Aren’t these the organizations that lied to the public in March 2020, saying masks were not effective?
They later justified their deception, at the cost of how many lives (?), by suggesting it was to prevent a shortage of masks for medical personnel.
These organizations are not promoting the science to shape policy, they’re promoting policy with filtered science.
Aren’t these the organizations that lied to the public in March 2020, saying masks were not effective?
They later justified their deception, at the cost of how many lives (?), by suggesting it was to prevent a shortage of masks for medical personnel.
These organizations are not promoting the science to shape policy, they’re promoting policy with filtered science.
> Aren’t these the organizations that lied to the public in March 2020, saying masks were not effective?
A simpler explanation, that is consistent with data, is that community masking was never very effective, and that the current mask guidelines are 100% about politics and signaling.
A simpler explanation, that is consistent with data, is that community masking was never very effective, and that the current mask guidelines are 100% about politics and signaling.
The notion that 7 Billion people in the world are living under a 'Mask Policy' which have no material value, but exists only for the purposes of 'signalling' is conspiratorial nonsense.
At the start of the pandemic, the efficacy of masks in the commons was still debatable, more so than is now.
Public Health Policy issues around getting 100's of millions of Westerners, not acclimated to wearing masks (as they are in some Asian countries), was a daunting concern, as we can see with all the anti-mask idiots even to this day.
N95s in particular were acutely necessary in Healthcare settings and the supply chains from China towards the start of the pandemic in the US were not quite ramped-up, and were just becoming secure by the time the CDC switched to a pro-mask footing. Otherwise, any call by the CDC for 350M Americans to 'wear masks' would have likely overran the Healthcare supply chain.
As the availability of PPE to Healthcare became secure, as Asian health officials urged Westerners to adopt mask policies, as we understand a bit more about masks, the policy shifted towards mask wearing.
Obviously, masks are a marginal tactic in the fight against COVID, but there is a systematic benefit, especially over 350M people million people, wearing them when they are interacting wit others. If there is ambiguity in their efficacy, it's rational to err on the side of caution, not the other way. Because we are 'going with the policy' then it has to be supported and enforced, like anything else.
At the start of the pandemic, the efficacy of masks in the commons was still debatable, more so than is now.
Public Health Policy issues around getting 100's of millions of Westerners, not acclimated to wearing masks (as they are in some Asian countries), was a daunting concern, as we can see with all the anti-mask idiots even to this day.
N95s in particular were acutely necessary in Healthcare settings and the supply chains from China towards the start of the pandemic in the US were not quite ramped-up, and were just becoming secure by the time the CDC switched to a pro-mask footing. Otherwise, any call by the CDC for 350M Americans to 'wear masks' would have likely overran the Healthcare supply chain.
As the availability of PPE to Healthcare became secure, as Asian health officials urged Westerners to adopt mask policies, as we understand a bit more about masks, the policy shifted towards mask wearing.
Obviously, masks are a marginal tactic in the fight against COVID, but there is a systematic benefit, especially over 350M people million people, wearing them when they are interacting wit others. If there is ambiguity in their efficacy, it's rational to err on the side of caution, not the other way. Because we are 'going with the policy' then it has to be supported and enforced, like anything else.
They didn't lie, they stated a policy valid for one context.
When the context shifted, they changed policy.
Public Health Policy is based on Science, but it's not the same as Science.
It's a strategy, a general policy and set of communication principles, based on facts, designed to get a large variety of people moving towards better health outcomes.
Some of those facts are not pretty, much of it is too complicated for public consumption, and necessarily not going to be directly part of the communication.
Obviously, in the interest of transparency, those facts and other bits of information (such as study results) are definitely publicly available to anyone who can Google - but what you're going to hear from Fauci, CNN, the 'papers of record' is the basis of a Public Policy.
If everyone acted conscientiously, in accordance with CDC guidelines, even while remaining vigilant to the extent they choose (i.e. verifying information as they so chose), this pandemic might very well have been already over.
When the context shifted, they changed policy.
Public Health Policy is based on Science, but it's not the same as Science.
It's a strategy, a general policy and set of communication principles, based on facts, designed to get a large variety of people moving towards better health outcomes.
Some of those facts are not pretty, much of it is too complicated for public consumption, and necessarily not going to be directly part of the communication.
Obviously, in the interest of transparency, those facts and other bits of information (such as study results) are definitely publicly available to anyone who can Google - but what you're going to hear from Fauci, CNN, the 'papers of record' is the basis of a Public Policy.
If everyone acted conscientiously, in accordance with CDC guidelines, even while remaining vigilant to the extent they choose (i.e. verifying information as they so chose), this pandemic might very well have been already over.
[deleted]
What is your opinion on Dr Li Wenliang, who publically contradicted official health guidelines that they were certain that there was no new SARS variant spreading in Wuhan and encouraging mask usage was spreading a public panic?
The assumption that material like this is the reason people don't believe the government is just that: an assumption.
What evidence do you have that this is what drives people to not believe the things the public health establishment wants them to believe?
You don't have any evidence because it's not possible to prove this.
I should also point out that you have misinformation in your statement.
You are stating that covid will eventually pass. This virus is now endemic and is not going to go away. You do realize this, right?
The vaccine is very effective in minimizing the risk of hospitalization and/or death but it is a leaky vaccine. Leaky vaccines will never eradicate any virus and instead will simply promote various mutations.
Blame unvaccinated people for many things but you can't blame them for the persistence of this virus. It's not going to go away.
What evidence do you have that this is what drives people to not believe the things the public health establishment wants them to believe?
You don't have any evidence because it's not possible to prove this.
I should also point out that you have misinformation in your statement.
You are stating that covid will eventually pass. This virus is now endemic and is not going to go away. You do realize this, right?
The vaccine is very effective in minimizing the risk of hospitalization and/or death but it is a leaky vaccine. Leaky vaccines will never eradicate any virus and instead will simply promote various mutations.
Blame unvaccinated people for many things but you can't blame them for the persistence of this virus. It's not going to go away.
It's false to suggest that we can't develop an understanding of how people arrive at their conclusions.
If you work in the field of Marketing, PR or Communications for just a few days, it becomes pretty clear how people come to believe what they do.
What is 'impossible' - is for a material portion of the population to arrive at the specific conclusion that 'XYZ drug is beneficial for ABC disease' without having popular sources for that information: they have to hear it or read it somewhere. The greater the voice, the greater the credibility of the source in the mind of the recipient, the greater the likelihood that information becomes sticky. While there are other factors, the primary vehicle of the message is paramount. It's also measurable.
In fact it is your statement that miscommunicates the ongoing nature of the pandemic:
While COVID may linger for some time, there is no evidence as of yet that it will remain endemic - we don't know that.
Also - pandemic itself will definitely pass - as all pandemics in history.
COVID may or may not linger around in one form or another, but we will, at some point, back off from public health emergency status.
If you work in the field of Marketing, PR or Communications for just a few days, it becomes pretty clear how people come to believe what they do.
What is 'impossible' - is for a material portion of the population to arrive at the specific conclusion that 'XYZ drug is beneficial for ABC disease' without having popular sources for that information: they have to hear it or read it somewhere. The greater the voice, the greater the credibility of the source in the mind of the recipient, the greater the likelihood that information becomes sticky. While there are other factors, the primary vehicle of the message is paramount. It's also measurable.
In fact it is your statement that miscommunicates the ongoing nature of the pandemic:
While COVID may linger for some time, there is no evidence as of yet that it will remain endemic - we don't know that.
Also - pandemic itself will definitely pass - as all pandemics in history.
COVID may or may not linger around in one form or another, but we will, at some point, back off from public health emergency status.
Didn't Eminem rap about wanting to kill the president?
In what oppressed world should you not be able to say that.
They're more than allowed to say it, YouTube is equally allowed to not repeat it.
And Congress is allowed to strip 230 protection from YouTube and any other platform that applies their rules selectively.
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
(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
Im not talking about technicalities. Im talking about what type of society do we want to live in.
Please burn all the books already published with those keywords.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=false+pandemic...
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=false+pandemic...
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.
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.
Well there is the crowd chant which sort of kind of sounds like “Let’s go Brandon” if you have hearing problems, but insofar as I can tell they don’t also say “horse paste.”
I had to look up what the "Let's go Brandon" chant was; forgive me for being crass, English isn't my first language but it sounds like they're saying "Fuck Joe Biden". Judging by the comments in the video I saw, I think that is what they're actually saying rather than encouraging the young man being spoken to by the person with the microphone.
You got it right.
That young man must feel so bad for this to be his moment. I hope it doesn't overshadow his other accomplishments.
The actual Brandon thought it was funny, as the chant probably aligned with his personal feelings.
In case anyone else doesn't get the joke, the reporter (as most reporters do) was covering for Biden when she pretended his noisy opposition was something else [1]. In other words, it was an unusually obvious attempt at a tawdry cover-up. Thus, the mockery in calling Biden "Brandon".
[1] It might remind some of this classic scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kpb8eu1pEY
In case anyone else doesn't get the joke, the reporter (as most reporters do) was covering for Biden when she pretended his noisy opposition was something else [1]. In other words, it was an unusually obvious attempt at a tawdry cover-up. Thus, the mockery in calling Biden "Brandon".
[1] It might remind some of this classic scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kpb8eu1pEY
treeman79(4)
You heard correctly. A reporter said it was "Lets go Brandon" in stark contrast to obvious reality, and the originally Ironic and now more widespread adoption of that has confused the situation further.
The "Let's go Brandon" thing was an almost comical attempt by the news reporter to try to cover up what the chant was.
Yes, people said the reporter was "misreporting" the chant but she was barely containing her laughter and it was clearly a joke. Everyone knew what the crowd was chanting.
I don't think it was a joke, it seemed more like she was lying.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
Has anyone actually seen the video and not just read the lyrics on genius ? Maybe the video itself is what actually caused the ban ?
I haven't been able to find it myself but maybe worth considering.
Ew. I just defended YouTube.
I haven't been able to find it myself but maybe worth considering.
Ew. I just defended YouTube.
Watched it here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Saint_BTC/status/1451559663753859...
Mostly just the rappers waving their hands around and showing their guns.
Mostly just the rappers waving their hands around and showing their guns.
[deleted]
Try to spot medical disinformation: https://crownlyric.com/2021/10/19/loza-alexander-lets-go-bra...
This is actually a different rapper, the article is referring to Bryson Gray. Either way, I don't see the medical misinformation.
https://genius.com/Bryson-gray-lets-go-brandon-lyrics
https://genius.com/Bryson-gray-lets-go-brandon-lyrics
> Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
How you woke, but you haven't opened your eyes? (You ain't see)
I mean, I know there are pockets of people who believe that saying vaccines don’t work is telling the truth, but broadly speaking, saying that vaccines are fake and don’t work is considered misinformation related to medicine.
I mean, I know there are pockets of people who believe that saying vaccines don’t work is telling the truth, but broadly speaking, saying that vaccines are fake and don’t work is considered misinformation related to medicine.
He didn't say they didn't work? He said it was lies that they stop the spread.
We now know of vaccinated people dying of covid, some right after being vaxxed, some months after, some after getting a second dose.
The lyrics can be interpreted a few ways. Was the vaccine then supposed to absolutely stop the spread and give absolute protection to a vaccinated person?
We now know of vaccinated people dying of covid, some right after being vaxxed, some months after, some after getting a second dose.
The lyrics can be interpreted a few ways. Was the vaccine then supposed to absolutely stop the spread and give absolute protection to a vaccinated person?
How is saying that "it was lies that they stop the spread" different from saying "they didn't work"?
He said vaccines don't work. You also said vaccines don't work. And that's just simply not true.
He said vaccines don't work. You also said vaccines don't work. And that's just simply not true.
In some cases, they do not.
But they work often enough and to a high enough degree of efficacy that we still should bother.
But they work often enough and to a high enough degree of efficacy that we still should bother.
No.
In specific cases, vaccines may not prevent you from contracting a disease.
In general, vaccines do work. Even if they didn't work in your specific case.
Now, to bring this back around to being on-topic to the thread it's in, whether or not vaccines "work" is actually irrelevant. Either they do work and therefore stop the spread, or they don't work and they therefore don't stop the spread. A vaccine can not work without doing its job.
In specific cases, vaccines may not prevent you from contracting a disease.
In general, vaccines do work. Even if they didn't work in your specific case.
Now, to bring this back around to being on-topic to the thread it's in, whether or not vaccines "work" is actually irrelevant. Either they do work and therefore stop the spread, or they don't work and they therefore don't stop the spread. A vaccine can not work without doing its job.
[deleted]
> saying that vaccines are fake and don’t work
But that's not what he's saying, is it?
But that's not what he's saying, is it?
"I do not think about things that I do not think about!"
— Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
— Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Oops. You’re right about me linking to the wrong song. I didn’t realize how popular that song title has become.
You really need this help, champ?
> Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
That's medical disinformation.
> Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
That's medical disinformation.
Show me how any of the vaccines stop the spread. Go ahead and show the study that shows any of them stop it. And make sure you pay close attention to the word “stop” because I believe that’s where you’re getting confused.
I don't have time to argue with someone who's demanding to be told that vaccines work, and I have even less time for "not every car crash is stopped by a seatbelt so seatbelts are dumb"
I'm not getting confused. I'm discarding facile positions based around inappropriate literalism
I'm not getting confused. I'm discarding facile positions based around inappropriate literalism
Vaccines reduce the spread, and Biden overstated their effectiveness, which is called a lie. I really wouldn't classify the line as disinformation.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/14/joe-biden/...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/14/joe-biden/...
Tech bros are now the gatekeepers of information for hundreds of millions of eyes (not just youtube, also google search manipulation, facebook algos, arguably outlets like netflix...maybe not Amazon yet) and here about half of the western world is cheering on the suppression.
How can someone place so much trust in this suppression without even seeing what's being censored? Is it just a deliberate blissful ignorance? Are these people really so naive from the comforts of modern western living?
How can someone place so much trust in this suppression without even seeing what's being censored? Is it just a deliberate blissful ignorance? Are these people really so naive from the comforts of modern western living?
It’s not the “bros” who are doing this.
it is management doing this, not the lower level coders
That's like saying KGB officers are just following orders. They're complicit implementors.
Well, it's not tech bros so much as it's the people failing to know where to get their information. Tech bros gon' tech bro, why would you try to get your news from them?
Yeah, sure, I get it, you get it, but how many people do you think realize that the programmers at google effectively gatekeep search results?
Right, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced we should step in to decide how people consume information, one way or another. The arguments that rely on, "Most people are stupid and can't figure these things out for themselves." are really just riffs on, "We should control what people think."
lazyjones(1)
https://variety.com/2021/music/news/youtube-will-not-ban-yg-...
When songs promote robbing Asian people YouTube says “ In a memo to staff explaining the rationale for not barring the YG video, management wrote: “We’ll start by saying we find this video to be highly offensive and understand it is painful for many to watch, including many in Trust & Safety and especially given the ongoing violence against the Asian community. One of the biggest challenges of working in Trust & Safety is that sometimes we have to leave up content we disagree with or find offensive… Sometimes videos that otherwise violate our policies are allowed to stay up if they have Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic context…
“In this case, this video receives an EDSA exception as a musical performance,” YouTube’s memo to staffers continued. “While EDSA is not a free pass for any content, there are likely thousands of music videos that would otherwise violate policies including Sex & Nudity, Violent or Graphic Content and Hate Speech were it not for these sorts of EDSA exceptions. As a result, removing this video would have far-reaching implications for other musical content containing similarly violent or offensive lyrics, in genres ranging from rap to rock. While we debated this decision at length amongst our policy experts, we made the difficult decision to leave the video up to enforce our policy consistently and avoid setting a precedent that may lead to us having to remove a lot of other music on YouTube.”
When songs promote robbing Asian people YouTube says “ In a memo to staff explaining the rationale for not barring the YG video, management wrote: “We’ll start by saying we find this video to be highly offensive and understand it is painful for many to watch, including many in Trust & Safety and especially given the ongoing violence against the Asian community. One of the biggest challenges of working in Trust & Safety is that sometimes we have to leave up content we disagree with or find offensive… Sometimes videos that otherwise violate our policies are allowed to stay up if they have Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic context…
“In this case, this video receives an EDSA exception as a musical performance,” YouTube’s memo to staffers continued. “While EDSA is not a free pass for any content, there are likely thousands of music videos that would otherwise violate policies including Sex & Nudity, Violent or Graphic Content and Hate Speech were it not for these sorts of EDSA exceptions. As a result, removing this video would have far-reaching implications for other musical content containing similarly violent or offensive lyrics, in genres ranging from rap to rock. While we debated this decision at length amongst our policy experts, we made the difficult decision to leave the video up to enforce our policy consistently and avoid setting a precedent that may lead to us having to remove a lot of other music on YouTube.”
Ah, so what's good for the goose is actually not good for the gander. Interesting...
Assaulting Asian people isn't incompatible with an explicit whitehouse policy initiative and in that example the artist wasn't wearing an "impeach biden" shirt.
Edit: People keep responding to this comment claiming that the video didn't feature an impeach biden shirt, then deleting their comments when they realized what they saw was a video using the same name exploiting the fact that the real video is hidden. :) If you feel the urge to make that reply, instead just update this counter instead:
Edit: People keep responding to this comment claiming that the video didn't feature an impeach biden shirt, then deleting their comments when they realized what they saw was a video using the same name exploiting the fact that the real video is hidden. :) If you feel the urge to make that reply, instead just update this counter instead:
[deleted]
YouTube has a very clear policy that only one opinion on COVID-19 is allowed on their platform. They are enforcing that policy.
And govt. totally didn't push for that exceptional "policy", it arose from the first principles of free market competition. Any apparent similarity to moderation on Weibo, TikTok or Bilibili is purely coincidental.
Sure, why not? Would it be suspicious if you and your neighbor both shared the same local doctor and got similar medical advice?
Doctors are expected to give medical advice while the US government is banned from policing speech. The analogy is fundamentally flawed.
I don't understand why you're mentioning the US government or policing speech, this article (and my analogy) is about youtube taking a video down. I think you may have misunderstood the analogy.
[deleted]
YouTube doesn’t censor enough? I agree.
You want to see worse? Youtube has shadowbanned this song from search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_F_XQrukM
Search "Let's go brandon" and it should be the number 1 result, it's #23 on trending for music still, it was #1, and it peaked at #1 on itunes hiphop charts for US. But you don't get it unless you search for "let's go brandon song", which makes me think somebody messed with it.
Search "Let's go brandon" and it should be the number 1 result, it's #23 on trending for music still, it was #1, and it peaked at #1 on itunes hiphop charts for US. But you don't get it unless you search for "let's go brandon song", which makes me think somebody messed with it.
Youtube instantly demonetized, put behind triple community warnings, and removed from search the video "The CIA is a Terrorist Organization" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI ) which was sourced only from things the CIA / US Government have formally admitted on the record as having done in the past.
Videos like this are only accessible in some countries if you provide YouTube with a government ID. In my country YouTube blocks a number of videos from public broadcasters this way.
Let me introduce a temporary workaround to you https://www.youtubeNSFW.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI
Those kinds of sites don't work. There are no operative workarounds as far as I know.
It used to be that youtube-dl worked, but on that CIA video I now get:
The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.
Was it really "the community" though?
Anyway, that video doesn't seem very out there at all to me. That the CIA has committed various things most reasonable people would classify as "crimes" and "terrorism" seems like common knowledge to me.
[youtube] _2khAmMTAjI: Downloading webpage
[youtube] _2khAmMTAjI: Refetching age-gated info webpage
WARNING: unable to download video info webpage: HTTP Error 410: Gone
ERROR: Sign in to confirm your age
This video may be inappropriate for some users.
The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.
Was it really "the community" though?
Anyway, that video doesn't seem very out there at all to me. That the CIA has committed various things most reasonable people would classify as "crimes" and "terrorism" seems like common knowledge to me.
Have you tried the YTBypass, 'youtubensfw' redirect? At first, the video won't load, but there is a notice to 'click this if the site won't load.' which brings up the video. It becomes possible to download the video then, although it is very slow.
There’s no major conspiracy here other than YouTube becoming increasingly hostile to the open web.
I would put money on Rumble becoming a major force in social media over the next ten years. It feels more like early YouTube than YouTube itself has felt for a long time.
I would put money on Rumble becoming a major force in social media over the next ten years. It feels more like early YouTube than YouTube itself has felt for a long time.
Why not PeerTube? It is gaining a lot more of momentum by interoperating with the rest of the fediverse.
Yt-dlp implemented a work-around that seems to work for now.
Even Wikipedia engages in strategic censorship on behalf of the three letter agencies.
Case in point: this article[0] was removed from Wikipedia without good reasoning. It would seem that the name of the article itself was inflammatory enough to the powers that be.
[0] https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/List_of_authoritarian_re...
Case in point: this article[0] was removed from Wikipedia without good reasoning. It would seem that the name of the article itself was inflammatory enough to the powers that be.
[0] https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/List_of_authoritarian_re...
> the name of the article itself was inflammatory enough to the powers that be
There's a discussion of why it was deleted here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
Primarily because 'this "list" is inherently subjective and constitutes [synthesised conclusions]'; you'll also note on that page that "List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia" was deleted at the same time - was that also at the behest of the US "powers that be"?
There's a discussion of why it was deleted here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
Primarily because 'this "list" is inherently subjective and constitutes [synthesised conclusions]'; you'll also note on that page that "List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia" was deleted at the same time - was that also at the behest of the US "powers that be"?
When I search for "Let's go brandon" (no quotes), it is number four in the search results... but with quotes, with or without apostrophe, I'm not sure because I don't see it... went down about 100 results...
yesterday I too had it as a front page result. Now it is a large number of pages down.
Censorbeast hit again.
Censorbeast hit again.
Zigurd(2)
i disagree with censoring. but i want to pose a question.
if i have q WordPress blog on a $5vps, and you post a comment saying my blog post is stupid. its my vps,im paying for it, i can delete the comment if i want right?
where do you draw the line? how big exactly does my blog have to get before this is considered big tech censorship?
if i have q WordPress blog on a $5vps, and you post a comment saying my blog post is stupid. its my vps,im paying for it, i can delete the comment if i want right?
where do you draw the line? how big exactly does my blog have to get before this is considered big tech censorship?
> where do you draw the line?
When you have lobbyists working for you.
When you have lobbyists working for you.
That’s a pretty good line IMO
Huh, yeah, as far as standards for increased regulation go that's a pretty good one.
You're falling victim to the sand heap fallacy. Sure, some sites would be gray areas, but it's obvious that a personal blog that can run on $5 per month is on one side of the line and YouTube is on the other.
You draw the line when you have a monopoly company with a trillion dollar market cap.
Just create and apply better anti-trust laws and break up the monopolies. (Specially since most platforms got their almost monopolies by creating anti-competitive walled gardens with no inter-operation with other similar platforms a la Fediverse / ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica)
Or better yet, promote counter-anti-desintermediation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio...
> The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before. If we are to understand the consequences of an increasingly centralized Internet, we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration. Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications systems be designed to capture profit.
Or better yet, promote counter-anti-desintermediation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio...
> The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before. If we are to understand the consequences of an increasingly centralized Internet, we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration. Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications systems be designed to capture profit.
Trillion dollar company won't allow better antitrust laws to happen, because they are allied with the currently ruling party.
This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no laws that harm the Company are passed, and Company will stop the spread of any information harmful to the Party.
This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no laws that harm the Company are passed, and Company will stop the spread of any information harmful to the Party.
> This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no laws that harm the Company are passed, and Company will stop the spread of any information harmful to the Party.
Probably no relation with the 2014 Princeton study published on the Cambridge University Press that determined the United States of America to be an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
> But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened
Probably no relation with the 2014 Princeton study published on the Cambridge University Press that determined the United States of America to be an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
> But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened
If the Presidency were an oligarchy, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama could have become President. And Trump could have never won, since most of the power groups were overwhelmingly against him winning, and he won solely due to his populist voter base - democracy in action in fact. Trump also raised drastically less money than Hillary Clinton did; if there's an oligarchy trying to pick presidents it was against him, not for him. His win partially invalidates the Princeton premise.
Neither Bill Clinton or Obama came from or had money. Neither had fathers in their lives or immediate great families of consequence. Neither had long-tenured national political experience. Oh yeah, and Obama is half black. The oligarchy chose Obama over Hillary Clinton? They had no choice is what actually happened.
Just because the study came from Princeton, that doesn't mean it's not idiotic.
Neither Bill Clinton or Obama came from or had money. Neither had fathers in their lives or immediate great families of consequence. Neither had long-tenured national political experience. Oh yeah, and Obama is half black. The oligarchy chose Obama over Hillary Clinton? They had no choice is what actually happened.
Just because the study came from Princeton, that doesn't mean it's not idiotic.
you've just perhaps inadvertently explained why trump is/was so popular, despite being a self-centered idiot. he was able to stick a thumb in the eye of the american oligarchs, and that felt to many americans like a sliver of hope against the hegemonization of america.
but that our political system isn't a full-on autocratic aristocracy doesn't mean it isn't oligarchal. oligarchy implies an outsized influence by a small subset, not complete control, just as democracy doesn't mean complete control by the people. oligarchy seems a pretty apt characterization.
but that our political system isn't a full-on autocratic aristocracy doesn't mean it isn't oligarchal. oligarchy implies an outsized influence by a small subset, not complete control, just as democracy doesn't mean complete control by the people. oligarchy seems a pretty apt characterization.
This is what I try to explain to people who don't understand how Trump got elected. Anyone who has little faith in the system can find something to like about Trump, and the establishment's hue and cry over him simply adds to their fervor.
A true countercultural president is rare, and the overlooked people in the country got one. His policy could be anything, as long as it makes the coastal folks angry.
A true countercultural president is rare, and the overlooked people in the country got one. His policy could be anything, as long as it makes the coastal folks angry.
They are the puppets of the people who hold true power. People so fabulously wealthy that they would never need to hold public office to get what they want. They can just buy it.
Executive power is different from legislative power and the later is the one most involved in policy-making.
Additionally it is a very weird presidentialist take to criticize a study on only the presidential election outcomes of a two-party state.
Additionally it is a very weird presidentialist take to criticize a study on only the presidential election outcomes of a two-party state.
"Die Partei, die Partei, die hat immer Recht!"
When you say “just do x,” you make it sound so simple. You’re missing out “just do all of this keeping in mind you’re trying to change the law using lawmakers who are personally invested in these companies that have more resources than many nation states.”
The idea of treating as a monopoly problem is interesting, but I'm not sure how you prevent centralization like this from repeating itself in the future, given that it is built on network effects.
At the end of the day there will be a concentration of audiences somewhere, so I don't think this problem goes away.
What I wonder is whether at a certain point we actually need to protect people from themselves. I get how ominous that sounds, but OTOH if large swaths of the population, say, fall prey to senseless conspiracy theories, do we just watch it play out?
At the end of the day there will be a concentration of audiences somewhere, so I don't think this problem goes away.
What I wonder is whether at a certain point we actually need to protect people from themselves. I get how ominous that sounds, but OTOH if large swaths of the population, say, fall prey to senseless conspiracy theories, do we just watch it play out?
> given that it is built on network effects.
Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way:
- Email is useful regardless of the software, OS, server or owner of the address you are sending emails to.
- The fediverse benefits from network effects and interoperability between instances with both different software and different communities.
I would even go further and argue that centralized "network effects" are in reality "captive costs" of "not being inside the walled garden" rather than a true network to begin with.
Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way:
- Email is useful regardless of the software, OS, server or owner of the address you are sending emails to.
- The fediverse benefits from network effects and interoperability between instances with both different software and different communities.
I would even go further and argue that centralized "network effects" are in reality "captive costs" of "not being inside the walled garden" rather than a true network to begin with.
>Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way
There's no technical reason they can't, but practically, a central, easily discernible destination appeals to those looking to monetize their content.
Email is a one-to-one (or few) channel vs broadcast. Completely different.
The arguments about decentralization/federation remind me of the early days of the Net, wherein there was so much talk of democratization, but here we are (unfortunately).
There's no technical reason they can't, but practically, a central, easily discernible destination appeals to those looking to monetize their content.
Email is a one-to-one (or few) channel vs broadcast. Completely different.
The arguments about decentralization/federation remind me of the early days of the Net, wherein there was so much talk of democratization, but here we are (unfortunately).
> There's no technical reason they can't, but practically, a central, easily discernible destination appeals to those looking to monetize their content.
That is very similar to what was mentioned up-thread:
> [..] we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration: Centralization is required to capture profit.
---
> Email is a one-to-one (or few) channel vs broadcast. Completely different.
ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica were also mentioned; email was about interop between software and service providers.
---
> The arguments about decentralization/federation remind me of the early days of the Net, wherein there was so much talk of democratization, but here we are (unfortunately).
Also mentioned up-thread:
> The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before.
That is very similar to what was mentioned up-thread:
> [..] we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration: Centralization is required to capture profit.
---
> Email is a one-to-one (or few) channel vs broadcast. Completely different.
ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica were also mentioned; email was about interop between software and service providers.
---
> The arguments about decentralization/federation remind me of the early days of the Net, wherein there was so much talk of democratization, but here we are (unfortunately).
Also mentioned up-thread:
> The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before.
>ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica were also mentioned
Yes, these are all examples of what's technically possible from a decentralization standpoint; yet have not flourished WRT adoption, relative to the centralized platforms.
>That is very similar to what was mentioned up-thread:
"[..] we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration: Centralization is required to capture profit.
I see the article you've quoted up-thread and the author's observation is so obvious as to add little to this discussion. That is, of course it's an issue of profit.
But, I suppose it does underscore that it's not the question of technology that advocates of Diaspora, etc. suggest.
So, sure, my original point that we'll always tend towards centralization on platforms that benefit from network effects relies on the assumption that we'll continue to have a capitalist economy.
Yes, these are all examples of what's technically possible from a decentralization standpoint; yet have not flourished WRT adoption, relative to the centralized platforms.
>That is very similar to what was mentioned up-thread:
"[..] we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration: Centralization is required to capture profit.
I see the article you've quoted up-thread and the author's observation is so obvious as to add little to this discussion. That is, of course it's an issue of profit.
But, I suppose it does underscore that it's not the question of technology that advocates of Diaspora, etc. suggest.
So, sure, my original point that we'll always tend towards centralization on platforms that benefit from network effects relies on the assumption that we'll continue to have a capitalist economy.
Look at the effects of email and "the fediverse" versus these giant social media platforms. Which is greater?
Well, a lot of organizations use email for internal and external operations processes and I would be very skeptical about sending contracts or legal documents via facebook messenger.
Through the magic of interoperability entities can set up their own servers or contract to external providers their email services.
Through the magic of interoperability entities can set up their own servers or contract to external providers their email services.
Fair point, but it has nothing to do with the context of the article. I was referring to the ability to influence societal and individual viewpoints. I don't think email comes anywhere near that.
The most coherent plans in recent times to do exactly that came from Elizabeth Warren. It would have solved the problem elegantly. But people are too partisan (and too fractally partisan within their parties) to listen to a good idea from a person they don't like.
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
Actually,
Many of us on different spectrums (libertarian here) did listen to what Elizabeth Warren said, and we agree with it.
I think there is a great deal of truth in what the anti-monopolist economic crusaders on the left (Sanders&Warren) have said. While I may not agree with everything they said about economics across the board, I do think they are correct in that we have permitted bigtech to become a monopoly. AND, I agree that overly favorable tax jurisdiction shopping is a massive problem.
We need to re-empower the DOJ to pursue antitrust again, and we need it now.
Many of us on different spectrums (libertarian here) did listen to what Elizabeth Warren said, and we agree with it.
I think there is a great deal of truth in what the anti-monopolist economic crusaders on the left (Sanders&Warren) have said. While I may not agree with everything they said about economics across the board, I do think they are correct in that we have permitted bigtech to become a monopoly. AND, I agree that overly favorable tax jurisdiction shopping is a massive problem.
We need to re-empower the DOJ to pursue antitrust again, and we need it now.
warren had a more coherent policy package than any other candidate, but from what i remember, some of her proposals showed clear detachment from actual on-the-ground issues vs. academic idealism. it's just like how 'progressivism' has been co-opted by ultra-liberal/socialist factions to mean 'spend as much as possible on social programs, consequences be damned', which we're seeing in the current stimulus package debate.
her proposals on how to deal with consolidated power and capital at the top are/were more reasonable, but that's because she's has a more visceral experience in that arena, rather than with poverty, housing, or immigration issues, for example.
her proposals on how to deal with consolidated power and capital at the top are/were more reasonable, but that's because she's has a more visceral experience in that arena, rather than with poverty, housing, or immigration issues, for example.
Are they a monopoly? They seem to have plenty of competition.
A lot of "rights" should scale inversely with power, to counteract how their effectiveness scales positively with power. The idea behind universal Democracy is that you should have collective power over everyone who has meaningful authority over you.
The power weilded by a government should be kept in check democratically by their constituents. As your blog grows into YouTube, you gain more and more power over people's lives and livelihoods... more political and economic reach with your decisions. That power should thus grow proportionally more limited by mechanisms of user empowerment, rights, and direct control.
There isn't a cutoff... there should instead be a sliding scale.
The power weilded by a government should be kept in check democratically by their constituents. As your blog grows into YouTube, you gain more and more power over people's lives and livelihoods... more political and economic reach with your decisions. That power should thus grow proportionally more limited by mechanisms of user empowerment, rights, and direct control.
There isn't a cutoff... there should instead be a sliding scale.
When the government is in command of what you take down, that's a pretty strong line.
Given basic human decency yes.
However American law requires bakers to bake cakes for events they as an individual disagree with. An old lady florist was individuals fined for refusing to do an event she thought was morally questionable.
It seems the only 'people' with rights to conscience are multi billion dollar companies conveniently doing the bidding of the party in power. So that's strange.
However American law requires bakers to bake cakes for events they as an individual disagree with. An old lady florist was individuals fined for refusing to do an event she thought was morally questionable.
It seems the only 'people' with rights to conscience are multi billion dollar companies conveniently doing the bidding of the party in power. So that's strange.
Sure you can. Also, if I post a comment in your blog saying that you are so smart unlike, say, Joe Rogan, who is eating horse de-wormer trying to cure his covid and you don't delete that comment then Joe Rogan may sue you for defamation.
Compare with YouTube, where anyone can post a video saying the same and if Joe Rogan came after them, YouTube would claim section 230 protection, insisting it's not selecting content and hence it's not responsible for the user's content.
Many people would be fine with YouTube or any other social media company censoring whatever it wants if it also had been liable for the content it leaves uncensored. As of now, it's having the cake (censoring anything they want) and eating it too (not being liable for the content that's left).
Compare with YouTube, where anyone can post a video saying the same and if Joe Rogan came after them, YouTube would claim section 230 protection, insisting it's not selecting content and hence it's not responsible for the user's content.
Many people would be fine with YouTube or any other social media company censoring whatever it wants if it also had been liable for the content it leaves uncensored. As of now, it's having the cake (censoring anything they want) and eating it too (not being liable for the content that's left).
Apparently the 'misinformation' trope has extended into art.
Many of you defending censorship in the last few years (and very much so on HN) on political grounds are going to be changing your minds in the coming years due to stuff like this.
Many of you defending censorship in the last few years (and very much so on HN) on political grounds are going to be changing your minds in the coming years due to stuff like this.
I don’t expect many minds to change. I predict the “‘private’ [misnomer] companies can do what they want [broadly false]” crowd to dig in and rationalize why art is not a special case. My own hypothesis is they personally identify with the corporations, e.g. they are entrepreneurs or might want to become entrepreneurs someday.
Honestly I don't think it's that they identify as entrepreneurs or business owners, I think it's just that they identify as progressives, and there is an incredibly prominent pro-censorship current in modern progressive ideology. I say this because I've definitely interacted with many people in real life who are not the "entrepreneur" or "pro corporate" types yet happily cheer on the censorship being practiced by big tech and the like
Progressives are not necessarily for censorship (though some are). But this "private censorship" is a consequence of not regulating new media industries.
So seeing some people complain about censorship after being against regulation has very much "you wanted this, serves you right" vibe.
So seeing some people complain about censorship after being against regulation has very much "you wanted this, serves you right" vibe.
I agree but would like to posit that that attitude is yet another issue of the current political landscape. The "your previous idea has turned out poorly, both this is your fault and I can now justify slightly this bad thing because it's happening to you" I probably phrased that poorly but I see lots of people who are against things, no longer being so strongly against that thing when it starts to hurt their 'enemies'. It's like a rule change in sport, I'm against it until it starts to give me a competitive advantage.
Which really just goes back to the two party, my enemy or my friend trope. Tribalism etc.
Which really just goes back to the two party, my enemy or my friend trope. Tribalism etc.
> My own hypothesis is they personally identify with the corporations,
I used to be like that and I remember defending YT censorship as I thought I would probably wanted to be able to do the same had my project took off. It took me a long time to realise I was wrong.
I used to be like that and I remember defending YT censorship as I thought I would probably wanted to be able to do the same had my project took off. It took me a long time to realise I was wrong.
What do you think the people who now shout "censorship" would say if few years ago, someone sugested "the tech giants should be regulated with regards to what content they host and follow due process when removing content"?
The tech giants are unregulated. They can do what they want. They want this for some reason, so they do it.
What is the alternative?
The tech giants are unregulated. They can do what they want. They want this for some reason, so they do it.
What is the alternative?
Doing what random HNer's want, apparently. Disrupting industries by straight up breaking the law: totally ok. Choosing what content your website will and will not host: absolutely monstrous. That's tech culture in a nutshell.
I mean, "the tech giants have enormous control over society, monopolistic positions and levels of vertical integration and trilions of cash at hand that make it impossible to fight them in market, can we do something about it?" is definitely a good discussion to have.
Not sure if "they should be hosting dangerous antivaxx content during global pandemic" (that some people claim doest actually exist because of previous content) is a good way to kick that discussion off.
(I realize this particular video possibly isnt that dangerous.)
Not sure if "they should be hosting dangerous antivaxx content during global pandemic" (that some people claim doest actually exist because of previous content) is a good way to kick that discussion off.
(I realize this particular video possibly isnt that dangerous.)
We're in the baby years of social media. I have some hope that humanity will figure some it out.
I also have a great deal of dread that we will not. We are not guaranteed to have nice things, and a few bad actors can do quite a lot of harm.
I also have a great deal of dread that we will not. We are not guaranteed to have nice things, and a few bad actors can do quite a lot of harm.
Censorship, to me, would be the government forcing these platforms to host content that isn't in their business interests, because it would be compelling speech. That's a much worse problem, in my mind, than private organizations removing content from their platforms.
I would rather live in this world than the alternative.
I would rather live in this world than the alternative.
> Many of you defending censorship in the last few years
It's beyond parody. If this was twitter, I'd be bringing out the clown emoji.
It's beyond parody. If this was twitter, I'd be bringing out the clown emoji.
This better not get to hosting providers or it all goes to shit.
Sure, big platforms censoring stuff is bad, but people still have the choice of renting a server and hosting whatever they want.
If your website, hosted on a dedicated machine that you rent from OVH or whatever (and probably Amazon, but I wouldn't trust them) or co-locate in a datacenter, can be taken down on claims of misinformation, that's it, RIP free Internet. It was nice knowing you.
Sure, big platforms censoring stuff is bad, but people still have the choice of renting a server and hosting whatever they want.
If your website, hosted on a dedicated machine that you rent from OVH or whatever (and probably Amazon, but I wouldn't trust them) or co-locate in a datacenter, can be taken down on claims of misinformation, that's it, RIP free Internet. It was nice knowing you.
Isn't that exactly what Amazon did to Parler already?
Yeah, like I said, wouldn't trust them.
Why Parler didn't use a "normal" hosting provider, I don't know.
Why Parler didn't use a "normal" hosting provider, I don't know.
What about GoDaddy?
https://gizmodo.com/godaddy-is-giving-texas-abortion-snitchi...
https://gizmodo.com/godaddy-is-giving-texas-abortion-snitchi...
You got me with this one. Actually threatening someone directly is worse than being an antivaxxer... Guess that's my cutoff point? Just shoot me in the head, I'm sick of this world.
People can't have too much freedom and these big corporations do the bidding for ruling political class. They are deep in tax avoidance and they don't want government to order IRS to start looking.
[deleted]
gigatexal(10)
kyle_martin1(2)
Article goes out of its way to avoid saying what's actually in the song or video.
That seems to be a really common thing! It's incredibly frustrating when reading some articles about someone being cancelled or the like.
It's a speciality of Fox News. It promotes the outrage well when you leave out the actually objectionable part. Others do it as well of course.
Like news shows local or national. Dislike the dropping of race when describing suspects at large but identifying gender.
The dropping of race of suspects has been going on in the news since the 1970s.
Local news in the US is largely owned by Sinclair and/or ClearChannel. (Maybe the latter is only billboards and such. It's hard to keep up with the obfuscation.)
ClearChannel got out of the television game years ago (and has since changed its name to the even-more-awful IHeartCommunications).
And Sinclair really doesn't hold a candle to Nexstar and Gray Television, who have managed to buy up the vast majority of local affiliates over the past several years.
And Sinclair really doesn't hold a candle to Nexstar and Gray Television, who have managed to buy up the vast majority of local affiliates over the past several years.
In this instance, showing the lyrics that were censored would have increased the outrage.
Fox News was a pioneer in this technique and unfortunately CNN and MSNBC have followed suit.
In the early 2000s I was always astonished by how utterly misinformed Fox News viewers were. In 2021 I am always astonished by how utterly misinformed MSNBC CNN and Fox News viewers are. On certain subjects like the statistical risk of a 35-year-old healthy person getting hospitalized for covid, Fox News viewers are actually the best informed. They still overestimate the risk but not by orders of magnitude that the other two sets of viewers succumb to. My father is a rabid MSNBC and CNN viewer, and like many of your typical resistance boomers is grossly ignorant about most things happening in the world. In December he was ranting to me about how the US could have had zero covid if someone else had been president. While I agreed with him that it had been mishandled I tried to explain to him that there wasn't any countries able to keep it out except for very isolated island nations. He was completely ignorant of this. He also freaked out when I contracted covid in February before I could give vaxxed. I was trying to explain to him that I'm very fit and healthy and relatively young but he really thought I was going to have to get hospitalized. This is when I started learning about the statistics on actual hospitalizations versus what the public thought. One difference between these groups of people who watch these utterly stupid channels is that Fox News viewers are pretty aware that they watch biased news. They weren't in the early 2000s though. MSNBC and CNN viewers think they're witnessing objective reporting in general. My father is always quick to say that he reads articles from the AP as if they are objective. They are absolutely not objective anymore. Ideological capture is a thing. And it was purely ideological when the AP told their reporters to call what was obviously rioting "mostly peaceful protests". The aftermath of that absurd line of thinking was me witnessing many family members who were right of center to completely lose any and all faith in journalistic institutions. It was a watershed moment in media becoming untrusted by most of the working class.
In the early 2000s I was always astonished by how utterly misinformed Fox News viewers were. In 2021 I am always astonished by how utterly misinformed MSNBC CNN and Fox News viewers are. On certain subjects like the statistical risk of a 35-year-old healthy person getting hospitalized for covid, Fox News viewers are actually the best informed. They still overestimate the risk but not by orders of magnitude that the other two sets of viewers succumb to. My father is a rabid MSNBC and CNN viewer, and like many of your typical resistance boomers is grossly ignorant about most things happening in the world. In December he was ranting to me about how the US could have had zero covid if someone else had been president. While I agreed with him that it had been mishandled I tried to explain to him that there wasn't any countries able to keep it out except for very isolated island nations. He was completely ignorant of this. He also freaked out when I contracted covid in February before I could give vaxxed. I was trying to explain to him that I'm very fit and healthy and relatively young but he really thought I was going to have to get hospitalized. This is when I started learning about the statistics on actual hospitalizations versus what the public thought. One difference between these groups of people who watch these utterly stupid channels is that Fox News viewers are pretty aware that they watch biased news. They weren't in the early 2000s though. MSNBC and CNN viewers think they're witnessing objective reporting in general. My father is always quick to say that he reads articles from the AP as if they are objective. They are absolutely not objective anymore. Ideological capture is a thing. And it was purely ideological when the AP told their reporters to call what was obviously rioting "mostly peaceful protests". The aftermath of that absurd line of thinking was me witnessing many family members who were right of center to completely lose any and all faith in journalistic institutions. It was a watershed moment in media becoming untrusted by most of the working class.
Less than 0.3% of the population watches prime time TV shows on any of the networks in your comment. Unfortunately despite a small initial audience they do have wide reach in terms of distributing short clips to various factions of the Twitter mob (which also happens to be comprised of an insignificant percentage of citizens).
In some populations, a person has a better chance of catching covid and dying than they do of saying they watched Chris Cuomo last night.
In some populations, a person has a better chance of catching covid and dying than they do of saying they watched Chris Cuomo last night.
sibling comment further down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972609
I'm curious if it was substantially different than other variations on "Let's Go Brandon" songs, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9DClYso2FA
Note: Just curious. Didn't even know about this "Let's Go Brandon" thing until now.
Note: Just curious. Didn't even know about this "Let's Go Brandon" thing until now.
Does it really matter? Clearly it would be in the realm of satire or political humor, things liberals have historically been very vocal about protecting.
I mean, obviously it could matter.
The difference between lying and joking is always in context. If I dress as a police officer for Halloween it's fine, if I lead you to believe I actually am a police officer it is a crime. There's also a middle ground where someone could mistake my costume for impersonation.
I don't know what aspect of this video violated the terms of service, but I think political videos on all sides regularly make statements that aren't supported by 'mainstream' fact checking sources and therefore might fall outside the policies of services like Youtube.
If you want to argue that all speech with 'political intent' should be protected I am open to that conversation! But that is not the standard held by most services, including Youtube, which Bryson Gray agreed to when he uploaded his song.
The difference between lying and joking is always in context. If I dress as a police officer for Halloween it's fine, if I lead you to believe I actually am a police officer it is a crime. There's also a middle ground where someone could mistake my costume for impersonation.
I don't know what aspect of this video violated the terms of service, but I think political videos on all sides regularly make statements that aren't supported by 'mainstream' fact checking sources and therefore might fall outside the policies of services like Youtube.
If you want to argue that all speech with 'political intent' should be protected I am open to that conversation! But that is not the standard held by most services, including Youtube, which Bryson Gray agreed to when he uploaded his song.
Ok - can someone explain to me how this is funny? Use small words please, I want to understand
Nascar is a sport where people drive cars in circles really fast. A reporter was interviewing a driver after he drove the fastest. The drivers name was Brandon. The crowd was chanting so loud it was louder than her interview. The reporter said that the crowd seemed very supportive because they were chanting "Let's go Brandon." The crowd was very obviously not chanting "Let's go Brandon." The crowd was chanting "Fuck Joe Biden." This reporter works for a news network that has a certain reputation for political bias. This event was seen as an obvious attempt to dissemble. This video went viral and had significant publicity.
One type of humor is known as "trolling". The basic idea is to see how much of a reaction you can get from something pointless and stupid. Now many people are making songs with the lyric "Let's go Brandon" and they are receiving hate mail, being banned, being demonitized, etc. This reaction is seen as outsized for a reference to a fairly well known piece of pop culture. Thus, to those who find outsized reactions funny, this is funny.
One type of humor is known as "trolling". The basic idea is to see how much of a reaction you can get from something pointless and stupid. Now many people are making songs with the lyric "Let's go Brandon" and they are receiving hate mail, being banned, being demonitized, etc. This reaction is seen as outsized for a reference to a fairly well known piece of pop culture. Thus, to those who find outsized reactions funny, this is funny.
This was actually illuminating
Humor is subjective
It must be funny, because many people find it to be funny.
Ours not to reason why.
Ours not to reason why.
"Biden said the jab stopped the spread, it was lies. How you WOKE but you haven’t opened your eyes?"
> Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
If I recall correctly, the Biden administration and the CDC both made public statements telling everyone that they would no longer need to continue wearing masks once they were vaccinated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
If I recall correctly, the Biden administration and the CDC both made public statements telling everyone that they would no longer need to continue wearing masks once they were vaccinated.
Are you implying that the lyric is wrong and the pandemic is over?
The lyrics don't say the vaccine would stop the pandemic, it says it would stop the spread, which it does. You are changing the wording to make it seem more reasonable than it is.
Fully vaccinated people are less likely to contract or spread the virus. There's no question about this currently with the present strains. However they do not at all halt the spread of the virus. Israel is a good example of this.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread I don't agree with the lyrics in that video. I find the video itself to be childish and silly but that would basically be 99% of rap and pop music in general.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread I don't agree with the lyrics in that video. I find the video itself to be childish and silly but that would basically be 99% of rap and pop music in general.
They do halt the spread. See also: polio, smallpox.
They have not halted the spread because of vaccine misinformation like this very video which you are defending.
They have not halted the spread because of vaccine misinformation like this very video which you are defending.
[deleted]
chroem-(3)
there is a Twitter video linked. it's truly nonsense and in glad it was banned tbh. he says the pandemic was planned and COVID vaccine didn't work amongst other misinformation
It is utterly nonsensical and foolish but I don't like the fact that it was banned.
When US media reports on activities like this in countries like China and Russia they call it censorship. When they report on the same activities in the US they call it "protecting the public from misinformation".
It's a very very slippery slope to ban things. Who gets to choose what gets banned? Who gets to say what is misinformation or not?
It blows my mind how shortsighted most of my left of center friends are on this topic. They seem to have this delusion that these levers of power are only ever going to be controlled by the people they agree with. In the early 2000s a lot of people I argued with were totally supportive of the Patriot act. They were generally conservatives and were just completely confident it would never be used against US citizens. Now those same people are witnessing calls from people on the left who wants opposed to Patriot act to use it against US citizens with right-wing politics.
When US media reports on activities like this in countries like China and Russia they call it censorship. When they report on the same activities in the US they call it "protecting the public from misinformation".
It's a very very slippery slope to ban things. Who gets to choose what gets banned? Who gets to say what is misinformation or not?
It blows my mind how shortsighted most of my left of center friends are on this topic. They seem to have this delusion that these levers of power are only ever going to be controlled by the people they agree with. In the early 2000s a lot of people I argued with were totally supportive of the Patriot act. They were generally conservatives and were just completely confident it would never be used against US citizens. Now those same people are witnessing calls from people on the left who wants opposed to Patriot act to use it against US citizens with right-wing politics.
So, now you cannot make even art with dissident ideas.
Welcome 1984!
Welcome 1984!
The art was made without issue. Distribution is not a right.
Just to provide context "NIH admits Fauci lied about funding Wuhan gain-of-function experiments" [1] If there's no one even making art with borderline lyrics, nobody may realize there's something besides the status quo. I'm not saying that I agree with all dissidents opinions, but I strongly disagree with messing with art. It's music for god's sake.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972283
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972283
This "art" is not being produced in a vacuum.
YouTube is fighting a problem with disinformation that has significant implications on a public health crisis.
I don't see why they should respond any differently, simply because someone is singing the disinformation.
YouTube is fighting a problem with disinformation that has significant implications on a public health crisis.
I don't see why they should respond any differently, simply because someone is singing the disinformation.
What other public health crises are YouTube dealing with?
There's many counties that have high fentanyl or drug overdose death, higher than covid. Does YouTube ban rap songs that detail that drug use? That talk about how to make meth in a coke bottle or crack out of cocaine?
How about the public health crisis of single motherhood. If you look at life outcomes of kids with 1 parent instead of 2, not only are they more likely to die younger, they're more likely to not graduate highschool, more likely to end up in jail. Is YouTube banning videos that encourage sleeping around and not taking responsibility for your progeny?
There's not a disinformation campaign about opioids.
> "This "art" is not being produced in a vacuum."
All art is political, even (especially) the CCP recognizes that power as it crushes art. What is really interesting, though, is the fact that the powers-that-be feel threatened by this art. Why would a mere rap video be so threatening?
All art is political, even (especially) the CCP recognizes that power as it crushes art. What is really interesting, though, is the fact that the powers-that-be feel threatened by this art. Why would a mere rap video be so threatening?
There's a long list of serious health issues currently.
For example, should Youtube start banning all modeling videos because is taking the life of young teeneagers with eating disorders?
What about smoking, drinking and illegal drugs on musical videos by very, very popular singers? Should Youtube start banning them too?
As far as I know, the example issues are taking way more lives than the current ONE. It's a double standard just to comply with the status quo.
Don't mess with art, it's just art, we all agree.
For example, should Youtube start banning all modeling videos because is taking the life of young teeneagers with eating disorders?
What about smoking, drinking and illegal drugs on musical videos by very, very popular singers? Should Youtube start banning them too?
As far as I know, the example issues are taking way more lives than the current ONE. It's a double standard just to comply with the status quo.
Don't mess with art, it's just art, we all agree.
How do you know that Youtube is always going to be correct when they take down anything for disinformation?
How do you know the host of the party you're crashing is correct when he tells you to leave?
Who cares? Whatever they take down, they can always put back up.
What would you say if Youtube did that to you?
That depends. Am I spreading misinformation?
Who's the authority on what's disinformation?
What makes you think that's relevant to what I'd do?
You didn't answer my question.
You didn't answer my question.
[deleted]
It’s always something.
Tech companies, controlling the distribution, now determine what is or isn't dissidence.
It may not be 1984, maybe something from Neuromancer or Snow Crash (I forget which) where big corps control the information that is considered acceptable for the plebs.
It may not be 1984, maybe something from Neuromancer or Snow Crash (I forget which) where big corps control the information that is considered acceptable for the plebs.
I disagree that we’re talking about rights at all. I think the issue is really norms and expectations. Do we really need to invoke the heavy hand of law and government as the ubiquitous standard for what is acceptable?
What classifies as distribution?
YouTube hosting the art. YouTube gets to decide what YouTube shows to its users.
So they are they a publisher?
No? They're a platform, the artist is the publisher.
A publishing house publishes a book that an author writes.
Digital platforms want to have it both ways - they want to (in some cases manually!!!) curate and censor recommendations, search results, and plain uploads, while also retaining their platform protections.
The libertarian stance on this issue is completely untenable. I know an Olympic gymnast who can’t perform gymnastics that well.
Digital platforms want to have it both ways - they want to (in some cases manually!!!) curate and censor recommendations, search results, and plain uploads, while also retaining their platform protections.
The libertarian stance on this issue is completely untenable. I know an Olympic gymnast who can’t perform gymnastics that well.
This isn't really about section 230, this is about the first amendment. You cannot, and will not, ever successfully pass an enforced law that requires private companies to maintain content they themselves did not produce on their website against their will.
You can repeal section 230, and the first amendment will still protect every company in the US from doing what you want them to do. There is no version of this where you win, and anti-vax or overtly hateful/conservative content sticks around on YouTube.
You can repeal section 230, and the first amendment will still protect every company in the US from doing what you want them to do. There is no version of this where you win, and anti-vax or overtly hateful/conservative content sticks around on YouTube.
The point of repealing section 230 is to end YouTube as we know it. Basically, YouTube becomes the Washington Post and can carry fully moderated content that it selects and publishes. YouTube's current business model only exists by legislative fiat. It's time to give power back to the courts and reinstate the precedent of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
Literally impossible as long as the First Amendment exists. You cannot compel speech with legislation the way you apparently want to. Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation, the First Amendment is ultimately the protector of YouTube, and will remain so as long as the United States remains a country.
Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Court, who would then rule it as unconstitutional to force YouTube to publish content it doesn't want to, and we'll be right back where we started, just now with precedent in a Supreme Court case.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-am...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-sec...
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-...
You are tilting at a windmill, friend.
Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Court, who would then rule it as unconstitutional to force YouTube to publish content it doesn't want to, and we'll be right back where we started, just now with precedent in a Supreme Court case.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-am...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-sec...
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-...
You are tilting at a windmill, friend.
The idea isn’t repealing 230 - it’s to recognise any platform that’s manually curating content as a publisher. Then if that publisher hosts illegal content, they’re liable, because if they can curate some of the content, they should be responsible for all of it.
Also political feasibility in the USA isn’t the end-all be-all. YouTube certainly wants to do business in other countries/regions - such as the EU. Google is a public company, and as such it’s executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Right now, since other megacorps want Google to censor content so their ads don’t run alongside XYZ content that you don’t like, Google is following their fiduciary duties. But if a regulator steps in, it becomes a matter if “oh shit doing business in the EU is more important than doing business with cocacola”
Also political feasibility in the USA isn’t the end-all be-all. YouTube certainly wants to do business in other countries/regions - such as the EU. Google is a public company, and as such it’s executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Right now, since other megacorps want Google to censor content so their ads don’t run alongside XYZ content that you don’t like, Google is following their fiduciary duties. But if a regulator steps in, it becomes a matter if “oh shit doing business in the EU is more important than doing business with cocacola”
Curation is not, has not, and will never be, the bar for determining what is and isn't a platform or a publisher. Curation is an expression of free speech, which is different from the role a publisher plays in works it publishes.
Your entire argument hinges on people not realizing there's a specific legal definition of the word "publisher", which means that no matter what politicians you convince to do what you want, it will never function as expected in the judiciary.
Your entire argument hinges on people not realizing there's a specific legal definition of the word "publisher", which means that no matter what politicians you convince to do what you want, it will never function as expected in the judiciary.
I don't want to compel speech. I want to reattach a cost or liability to YouTube that was removed via state power.
Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with 'Board Leaders', and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language."
The State removed the above liability via Section 230, which paved the way for YouTube to become the monolith it is today. Reattaching liability to YouTube would force it to choose between an editorial model (Prodigy) or a platform model (CompuServe). It would not get the luxury of the editorial model without paying the corresponding costs of that model. In other words, it would put YouTube on the same playing field as the Washington Post and other traditional news sources.
Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with 'Board Leaders', and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language."
The State removed the above liability via Section 230, which paved the way for YouTube to become the monolith it is today. Reattaching liability to YouTube would force it to choose between an editorial model (Prodigy) or a platform model (CompuServe). It would not get the luxury of the editorial model without paying the corresponding costs of that model. In other words, it would put YouTube on the same playing field as the Washington Post and other traditional news sources.
That doesn't matter, because The First Amendment still prevents the US government from stopping YouTube from existing as a platform for content it does not produce. It's a simple concept of "who did this?" and if it's not YouTube, then it's not liable.
I notice you ignored completely the articles I linked, and didn't even bother to address the myriad arguments put forward by legal experts on this issue. I assume that's because you have no legal standing whatsoever, and would prefer to just say, "This is what I want and I don't care if the country has to cease to exist first."
Additionally, I find it highly hypocritical that you post such an opinion on a platform that would be shut down, were you to magically get your way. When you have to express your opinion in a way that wouldn't be allowed if your opinion were shared, you might want to rethink your position. It makes your position look wholly unconsidered, which it apparently is.
I notice you ignored completely the articles I linked, and didn't even bother to address the myriad arguments put forward by legal experts on this issue. I assume that's because you have no legal standing whatsoever, and would prefer to just say, "This is what I want and I don't care if the country has to cease to exist first."
Additionally, I find it highly hypocritical that you post such an opinion on a platform that would be shut down, were you to magically get your way. When you have to express your opinion in a way that wouldn't be allowed if your opinion were shared, you might want to rethink your position. It makes your position look wholly unconsidered, which it apparently is.
So effectively you just want people with money to have the ability to disseminate their speech, since they're the only ones who would be able to share their content via any of these platforms if Section 230 were repealed.
[deleted]
The libertarian stance would be to repeal CDA 230. I don't know any libertarians that prefer statutory law to common law.
"Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems."
"Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems."
YouTube makes opinionated decisions about what gets in their search results. They edit their search results and have a team that decides that goes on the front page. That's editing. YouTube is a publisher.
Nope! None of that is relevant, even remotely, in determining what a publisher is. YouTube is a platform.
Distribution in platforms or platforms themselves. If platforms abuse their power the government can enforce standards on platforms or disallow them from their country/region. Distribution is not a right for either party.
If you have a monopoly and your spy platform is essentially infrastructure then yes, of course it is.
Thank god there's 20 alternatives to YouTube then.
Daily reminder to use Peertube and that being able to reach people, centralization, and ad monetization are incompatible with freedom.
Use Peertube, you can't have freedom and reach+monetization.
I've grown pessimistic about distributed networks and the Fediverse. The Pareto distribution is this neverending bastard of a phenomena that creeps up into everything we touch.
If a distributed network ends up displacing Youtube, what's going to inevitably happen is one section of the network is going consume the vast majority of the viewership and content, and they're going to start repeating the same shit that Youtube is doing right now.
I'm not saying we shouldn't promote alternatives, but I am saying we haven't really figured out how to properly integrate social media into our society without it disintegrating into what we're seeing now (or worse).
If a distributed network ends up displacing Youtube, what's going to inevitably happen is one section of the network is going consume the vast majority of the viewership and content, and they're going to start repeating the same shit that Youtube is doing right now.
I'm not saying we shouldn't promote alternatives, but I am saying we haven't really figured out how to properly integrate social media into our society without it disintegrating into what we're seeing now (or worse).
I'd like for it to be abolished completely but I recognize that's just not helpful or realistic tbh
[deleted]
I'm out of the loop, but I've been seeing "Let's Go Brandon" posts on a certain subset of the internet that I keep my eye on, so this headline and source doesn't surprise me.
I think I'm better off judging this book by it's cover and not telling Youtube how to run their house.
I think I'm better off judging this book by it's cover and not telling Youtube how to run their house.
"I'm okay with youtube censoring memes that make fun of the president"
Youtube could pivot to nothing but cat videos tomorrow and they would be perfectly in the right to do so.
There are many extraordinarily biased US media companies out there. In theory, YouTube can become one more. And that is fine.
But these companies are a lot less respectable than YouTube has been to date, and people know what they are getting.
The issue here is YouTube's standards are changing and that deserves to be discussed. And condemned, it is change for the worse (even if in some sense it is probably inevitable).
But these companies are a lot less respectable than YouTube has been to date, and people know what they are getting.
The issue here is YouTube's standards are changing and that deserves to be discussed. And condemned, it is change for the worse (even if in some sense it is probably inevitable).
And that would be perfectly fine, but only if Youtube's CEO stops giving speeches about free speech being a core value
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28683575
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28683575
It's absolutely in their rights.
It's also within people's rights to criticize them for it.
It's also within people's rights to criticize them for it.
I don't think that is correct.
They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
I am.
glhfgg(1)
jaspergilley(1)
Something is wrong when the king needs to censor the jester.
I don't understand the allegories to feudalism when jesters who crossed a line weren't censored but executed. (I would guess specially if they expressed or supported any sort of anti-monarchy or anti-their-monarchs viewpoints)
Actually, it was a chief job of the jester to cross the line when other members of the court could not. Jesters, as all court members, had a natural fear of execution, but probably not any higher than any of the other courtiers.
He had a slightly different line, but got executed if he crossed that one.
maybe peasant is a better allegory; he works the lord's lands solely at the lord's discretion, keeps a tiny share of what is produced and is ejected at will
[deleted]
You can't properly understand something if you can't question it. When you elevate any idea to unquestionable capital-T Truth, you blind yourself to the actual truth. You break the only mechanism we've ever discovered for figuring out how the world actually works. Censorship of anything is the enemy of human progress and always has been.
I heard a good definition of what it means to be rational the other day. If I remember correctly it was a simple as being open to error correction. Perhaps this is a statement by David Deutsch, I don’t remember right now. But I like the definition very much. If you can’t communicate how are you going to do error correction?
I can agree with you, but the issue is that this isn't an academic discussion on the merits of thorough vaccine trials. Here's the third verse:
"Let’s go, Brandon, we know he cappin’ Patriots out in the street takin’ action Huntin’ us down for speakin’ the truth (Huh) Beat down the PEDO, let’s save all the youth (Uh huh) Media lyin’, ignore all the cryin’ They buildin’ back better, but only the Taliban (What?) Pilots on strike, but to Joe, it’s irrelevant Open the border, lose all the order Divide us up so they know what we never win But we united, we here in the stadiums (Let’s go) Everyone chantin’ it, CNN slanderin’ (Let’s go) Biden collaspin’ and Democrats stealin’ it (Facts) Ayy, we look at Joe, can we get a refund? (Brandon) How ‘bout some mean tweets? (Facts) Joe is a crook, and he knows how to decieve F.J.B. is the motto in these streets, let’s go, Brandon sing it with me"
I see a lot of claims but no questions. This wasn't written to question, it was written to enforce ideas already held by the listener. I agree that the song shouldn't be censored, but I also think it doesn't have any right to be promoted or distributed by third parties. YouTube has as much of a right to take the song down as Sound Cloud has to leave it up, which is exactly equal to any venue that chooses to let him perform on stage.
"Let’s go, Brandon, we know he cappin’ Patriots out in the street takin’ action Huntin’ us down for speakin’ the truth (Huh) Beat down the PEDO, let’s save all the youth (Uh huh) Media lyin’, ignore all the cryin’ They buildin’ back better, but only the Taliban (What?) Pilots on strike, but to Joe, it’s irrelevant Open the border, lose all the order Divide us up so they know what we never win But we united, we here in the stadiums (Let’s go) Everyone chantin’ it, CNN slanderin’ (Let’s go) Biden collaspin’ and Democrats stealin’ it (Facts) Ayy, we look at Joe, can we get a refund? (Brandon) How ‘bout some mean tweets? (Facts) Joe is a crook, and he knows how to decieve F.J.B. is the motto in these streets, let’s go, Brandon sing it with me"
I see a lot of claims but no questions. This wasn't written to question, it was written to enforce ideas already held by the listener. I agree that the song shouldn't be censored, but I also think it doesn't have any right to be promoted or distributed by third parties. YouTube has as much of a right to take the song down as Sound Cloud has to leave it up, which is exactly equal to any venue that chooses to let him perform on stage.
YouTube certainly has that right, but they enforce it at the risk of losing any credibility on claims of impartiality or “holding free speech as a core value,” like their CEO bragged about last month.
But yes, I totally agree – the song “Fuck Donald Trump” has been on YouTube for 5+ years with millions of views, and YouTube has every right to take it down.
But yes, I totally agree – the song “Fuck Donald Trump” has been on YouTube for 5+ years with millions of views, and YouTube has every right to take it down.
atleta(2)
Oh, was not aware that youtube was part of the federal government.
It is not part of any government, but if it does work on its behest we need to ask questions.
gremloni(3)
Uh. The video that says vaccines don't work on covid, and talks about Joe Biden's death conspiracy?
Why are ... why are we quoting Fox News credlously again?
Has HN not learned, yet?
Why are ... why are we quoting Fox News credlously again?
Has HN not learned, yet?
Honestly, I support the right of YouTube to not host content they don't want to host, given they own the data centers. This dude is free to get a record deal, play live on the street, or distribute music in any of the other thousands of ways that don't require uploading to YouTube.
But this is still silly. It's a song. Rage Against The Machine has a song claiming the FBI staged the murders of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and it's the most popular song from The Matrix soundtrack. And an iconic, great song that I love, for what it's worth, even though I doubt the truth of that claim.
But this is still silly. It's a song. Rage Against The Machine has a song claiming the FBI staged the murders of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and it's the most popular song from The Matrix soundtrack. And an iconic, great song that I love, for what it's worth, even though I doubt the truth of that claim.
No, it says it was a lie that vaccines would stop the spread.
I see that for shorthand that the whole response wasn’t managed properly as the “spread” still happened.
I don’t think it’s a fair criticism of Biden, but it’s a rap song, which tends to encourage a bit of hyperbole.
I see that for shorthand that the whole response wasn’t managed properly as the “spread” still happened.
I don’t think it’s a fair criticism of Biden, but it’s a rap song, which tends to encourage a bit of hyperbole.
You're ignoring this line. Not exactly subtle what is being said.
> Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it
> Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it
Do we really know this is false? I think it is but don’t know so. It’s quite unlikely but not impossible.
Banning alternative points of view is a slippery slope.
Banning alternative points of view is a slippery slope.
skulk(5)
Youtube Alternatives : Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii, DLive, Triller, Gab TV
Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
Also, spin up a VPS - even if it has to be on a infra provider also used by Parler or whatever. The key insight IMO is that this isn't about free speech it's about maximizing your reach by any means necessary. YouTube is a good place for that, but failing that, so is getting written about at Fox News. Rumble, et al... not so much.
Someone has already linked to it being posted on Gab. What people are really upset about is that they can't use Youtube's technological prowess, audience reach and outlet legitimacy to promote their ideas. When someone sees:
"You can't find it on Youtube, but it's hosted on Gab",
The listener draws enough conclusions about the media and it's intended audience for it to be dead on arrival.
"You can't find it on Youtube, but it's hosted on Gab",
The listener draws enough conclusions about the media and it's intended audience for it to be dead on arrival.
[deleted]
Wow, that's a lot of flagged comments and banned users simply saying censorship is bad. No narrative being pushed here at all, move along..
> Wow, that's a lot of flagged comments and banned users simply saying censorship is bad. No narrative being pushed here at all, move along..
As of writing this I count one banned user who was clearly banned a long time ago, and the majority of flagged comments not saying that at all. Some flagged comments even take the opposite side.
As of writing this I count one banned user who was clearly banned a long time ago, and the majority of flagged comments not saying that at all. Some flagged comments even take the opposite side.
I'm not sure what you think you're seeing, but FWIW we turned off the flags on this thread. Individual comments that break the site guidelines still can and should be flagged, of course.
Lyrics:
[Intro: Joe Biden & Bryson Gray] The various shots the people are getting now cover that They're-, they're-, they're okay You're not gonna-, you're not gonna get COVID if you have these vaccinations Somebody gotta do it Ayy
[Chorus: Bryson Gray] Let's go, Brandon I keep a drum like I'm Nick Cannon, ayy, ayy, ayy, ayy (Brrt, brrt) Let's go, Brandon Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it, ayy, ayy (They just planned it) Let's go, Brandon When you ask questions, they start bannin', ayy, ayy (Facts) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Ayy, let's go, Brandon) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Ayy, let's go, Brandon) Let's go, Brandon I keep a drum like I'm Nick Cannon, ayy, ayy (Pow, pow) Let's go, Brandon Pandemic ain't real, thеy just planned it, ayy, ayy (They just planned it) Lеt's go, Brandon When you ask questions, they start bannin', ayy, ayy (Facts) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Let's go) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Ayy, let's go)
[Verse 1: Bryson Gray] Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember) How you woke, but you haven't opened your eyes? (You ain't see) These politicians are demons, just in disguise (Facts) Look at Kyrie Irving and Nicki Minaj (Let's go) Look at Australia, that's what's comin' next if we don't stand up Stop complyin' with them takin' our rights, it's time to man up 'Publicans votin' for red flag laws, that's just what I can't trust If you ask questions 'bout the vax, then they gonna ban us (It's true) Ayy, this is 'bout control, everybody knows Everyone complies weigh the cons and pros I don't need a plane, I just hit the road I do what I want, I can't sell my soul Market 'bout to crash, this is what you chose Ruinin' the country, I think that's the goal You gon' take the mark, I take narrow roads I'm a man of God, I can never fold
Disclaimer: I am not supporting either side here - and the lyrics are not really the issue in this situation imho - it is more meta than that.
[Intro: Joe Biden & Bryson Gray] The various shots the people are getting now cover that They're-, they're-, they're okay You're not gonna-, you're not gonna get COVID if you have these vaccinations Somebody gotta do it Ayy
[Chorus: Bryson Gray] Let's go, Brandon I keep a drum like I'm Nick Cannon, ayy, ayy, ayy, ayy (Brrt, brrt) Let's go, Brandon Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it, ayy, ayy (They just planned it) Let's go, Brandon When you ask questions, they start bannin', ayy, ayy (Facts) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Ayy, let's go, Brandon) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Ayy, let's go, Brandon) Let's go, Brandon I keep a drum like I'm Nick Cannon, ayy, ayy (Pow, pow) Let's go, Brandon Pandemic ain't real, thеy just planned it, ayy, ayy (They just planned it) Lеt's go, Brandon When you ask questions, they start bannin', ayy, ayy (Facts) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Let's go) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Ayy, let's go)
[Verse 1: Bryson Gray] Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember) How you woke, but you haven't opened your eyes? (You ain't see) These politicians are demons, just in disguise (Facts) Look at Kyrie Irving and Nicki Minaj (Let's go) Look at Australia, that's what's comin' next if we don't stand up Stop complyin' with them takin' our rights, it's time to man up 'Publicans votin' for red flag laws, that's just what I can't trust If you ask questions 'bout the vax, then they gonna ban us (It's true) Ayy, this is 'bout control, everybody knows Everyone complies weigh the cons and pros I don't need a plane, I just hit the road I do what I want, I can't sell my soul Market 'bout to crash, this is what you chose Ruinin' the country, I think that's the goal You gon' take the mark, I take narrow roads I'm a man of God, I can never fold
Disclaimer: I am not supporting either side here - and the lyrics are not really the issue in this situation imho - it is more meta than that.
> Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it
Sounds like medical misinformation to me.
Sounds like medical misinformation to me.
What specifically? I read that statement as saying that this isn’t accidental, not that Covid-19 literally doesn’t exist.
I disagree with that conspiracy theory, but you can hardly call it medical misinformation in my judgment.
I disagree with that conspiracy theory, but you can hardly call it medical misinformation in my judgment.
That is... hard to read.
easier to just watch it: https://tv.gab.com/channel/realbrysongray/view/lets-go-brand...
Weird that YouTube doesn't want Gab's amazing content[0]. More for Gab, then!
0: https://tv.gab.com/category
0: https://tv.gab.com/category
That page is due for a change, for sure. We're very resource-constrained.
Hey, you don't have to explain it to me. Creating a category page with "CCP Virus" and QAnon at the top is obviously a side effect of... uh... _resource_ constraint.
OK but to drop the sarcasm, I guess it is true there is a certain resource y'all lack that other people have.
OK but to drop the sarcasm, I guess it is true there is a certain resource y'all lack that other people have.
Definitely less elitism and snobbery, but we have a sense of humor and and awareness of what's currently blacklisted elsewhere. It doesn't make much sense to me, to criticize Gab for highlighting things which are VERBOTTEN elsewhere, when that is the entire flipping point, isn't it?
I mean sure, Gab is Gab which is why people don't really use it. At this point cultivating that kind of community is probably your only option besides starting over with a new name. So, fair enough.
It was a shit song anyway. This one is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB_T54wg9KI. No "Brandon" just straight facts, expertly delivered from the standpoint of working poor. YT is still trying to figure out how to take it down.
Also iTunes Hip Hop top 100 had 5 "Let's go Brandon" songs in it a couple of days ago, including #1.
Also iTunes Hip Hop top 100 had 5 "Let's go Brandon" songs in it a couple of days ago, including #1.
In most cases, well publicised censorship of art backfires and provides more notoriety and fans for the artist.
In most of the cases you remember you mean, in the vast majority of the time you never heard about it and it was successful.
[deleted]
Youtube doesn't care. It can't have antivax stuff on their platform because advertisers don't want their ads on controversial content.
I don't think that is true. At the very least, they can classify these kind of things (and probably already do) and let advertisers choose if they want their ads on them or not.
advertisers don't care as long as no one points it out
What connection is there to ads and content? It’s a random (to a degree) ad selected by youtube you can’t wait to close so you watch your chosen content.
Further, videos are not outright banned on behalf of advertisers, only demonetised. Also, whether you agree or not, there would be advertisers who wish to target this audience. There isn’t a shared moral code that all advertisers abide by.
Somethings very wrong when advertisers are acting as content moderators.
Further, videos are not outright banned on behalf of advertisers, only demonetised. Also, whether you agree or not, there would be advertisers who wish to target this audience. There isn’t a shared moral code that all advertisers abide by.
Somethings very wrong when advertisers are acting as content moderators.
This is definitely what I would call a "wrong Why"
EVerybody's paycheck depends on pretending to take the vax seriously. From the walmart cashiers to the advertising execs. It's a good joke.
I think that's changing as challenging the vaccine efficacy or risk profile has become less controversial in the last month. Been sent about half a dozen videos in last week with high viewership and they haven't been removed. This is probably because all of Northern Europe has essentially banned Moderna due to myocarditis risk, and data from many countries, even the CDC's own, show the vaccinated now getting infected at similar rates as unvaccinated (i.e. antibody drop off or virus mutation).
EDIT
Responding to person who wants to learn more, I'm going in good faith that you're not the ad hominem type. Given the climate of cancellation and censorship not a lot of people are speaking up, so take what you can get...
The recent Joe Rogan episode with Berenson is a review of quite a few papers and government data sets which they parse. Watch it on Spotify. You're going to get intro'd to data from Israel, UK, CDC, others about vaccine efficacy and about adverse events in young people due to inflammation from accumulation of spike protein.
CDC's most recent data shows 40% of covid deaths over last week were of the vaccinated, e.g. relevant screen shots from CDC's website via this random guy, https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/145165375288951604...
You can certainly google Northern Europe's halt on Moderna (either for youth or for all). Sweden just halted today, e.g. Shttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/sweden-suspends-moderna-...
There's a lot on YT, round table discussions with medical professionals are the most interesting. I've observed the same censorious culture on HN as on social media when it comes to vaccines, so I'm not going to share links so they can stay up for others who are making difficult decisions. You can find them by poking around accounts on Twitter Gab Substack of people who are speaking out against vaccine mandates or related.
EDIT
Responding to person who wants to learn more, I'm going in good faith that you're not the ad hominem type. Given the climate of cancellation and censorship not a lot of people are speaking up, so take what you can get...
The recent Joe Rogan episode with Berenson is a review of quite a few papers and government data sets which they parse. Watch it on Spotify. You're going to get intro'd to data from Israel, UK, CDC, others about vaccine efficacy and about adverse events in young people due to inflammation from accumulation of spike protein.
CDC's most recent data shows 40% of covid deaths over last week were of the vaccinated, e.g. relevant screen shots from CDC's website via this random guy, https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/145165375288951604...
You can certainly google Northern Europe's halt on Moderna (either for youth or for all). Sweden just halted today, e.g. Shttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/sweden-suspends-moderna-...
There's a lot on YT, round table discussions with medical professionals are the most interesting. I've observed the same censorious culture on HN as on social media when it comes to vaccines, so I'm not going to share links so they can stay up for others who are making difficult decisions. You can find them by poking around accounts on Twitter Gab Substack of people who are speaking out against vaccine mandates or related.
Not sure where you're getting your data but here's some data for you: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/...
Over the past month, fully vaccinated individuals accounted for 29% of cases and 19% of hospitalizations (In British Columbia, Canada).
We have ~75% of the population vaccinated. So 25% of the people account for 71% of the cases and the case rate amongst vaccinated is significantly lower. What you really want to think about is what that says about the R number difference between those populations because our R is hovering around 1 so the vaccine is making a huge difference.
Over the past month, fully vaccinated individuals accounted for 29% of cases and 19% of hospitalizations (In British Columbia, Canada).
We have ~75% of the population vaccinated. So 25% of the people account for 71% of the cases and the case rate amongst vaccinated is significantly lower. What you really want to think about is what that says about the R number difference between those populations because our R is hovering around 1 so the vaccine is making a huge difference.
In regards to covid-19 in particular:
> Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
> Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
The study is flawed in many ways. There is no control for any other measures in place. Also looking at the case rate is not the right metric since we don't know the base rate for the comparison, I would want to look at an estimate of R instead.
EDIT: "Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. "
I follow Israel's Covid situations very closely because I have family there and this statement is misleading. The increase in cases in Israel was related to the delta variant arriving, the overall vaccine coverage being low (yeah, 60% isn't enough for Delta) and all restrictions being lifted. And yes, some waning of the effectiveness of the vaccines as well. With the reintroduction of some restrictions (such as vaccine passports e.g.), higher vaccine coverage, and some 3rd booster shots their cases have dropped significantly (by a factor of 8 over a month or so!).
EDIT: "Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. "
I follow Israel's Covid situations very closely because I have family there and this statement is misleading. The increase in cases in Israel was related to the delta variant arriving, the overall vaccine coverage being low (yeah, 60% isn't enough for Delta) and all restrictions being lifted. And yes, some waning of the effectiveness of the vaccines as well. With the reintroduction of some restrictions (such as vaccine passports e.g.), higher vaccine coverage, and some 3rd booster shots their cases have dropped significantly (by a factor of 8 over a month or so!).
You're looking at presented cases and hospitalizations - a fraction of a fraction of total covid infections. There's no way this accurately reflects R0 (assuming that's what you're talking about - sorry if I'm wrong!). And determining the impact vaccines have on R0 is nearly impossible - there's too many unknown unknowns that would confound it.
For example, if a flu vaccine was administered at the end of a seasonal peak, we'd think the vaccine caused the dropoff because we don't understand seasonality.
For example, if a flu vaccine was administered at the end of a seasonal peak, we'd think the vaccine caused the dropoff because we don't understand seasonality.
We don’t actually care about infections, we care about the things infections cause. A single virus infecting a single cell is an infection, what happens after that depends on the immune system. Antibodies are supposed to stick around briefly after an infection to minimize the risks of reinfection. For near lifetime immunity as provided by the measles vaccine it comes down to memory B cells which drastically speed up the adaptive immune response. Thus reducing the period an infection is contagious and reducing the risks of severe infection.
Note, the above applies both to natural infections and vaccination. Also note many childhood vaccinations are effective for decades.
Note, the above applies both to natural infections and vaccination. Also note many childhood vaccinations are effective for decades.
GP was referring to a limited subset of data that gives an incorrect picture of what the R0 is. I was trying to point out why that data is the wrong set to draw a meaningful number from.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out, sorry!
I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out, sorry!
Yea, I skipped that part of your comment as meaningless. RO excludes vaccinations and prior infections by definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number, or basic reproductive number (sometimes called basic reproduction ratio or basic reproductive rate), denoted R 0 R_{0} (pronounced R nought or R zero),[1] of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.[2] The definition assumes that no other individuals are infected or immunized (naturally or through vaccination). Some definitions, such as that of the Australian Department of Health, add the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease transmission".
I assume your concerned about transmission, but that’s not a constant when you include vaccinations reducing infection severity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number, or basic reproductive number (sometimes called basic reproduction ratio or basic reproductive rate), denoted R 0 R_{0} (pronounced R nought or R zero),[1] of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.[2] The definition assumes that no other individuals are infected or immunized (naturally or through vaccination). Some definitions, such as that of the Australian Department of Health, add the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease transmission".
I assume your concerned about transmission, but that’s not a constant when you include vaccinations reducing infection severity.
First let's deal with the nitpicky semantics. R0 is is the basic reproduction number while R generally denotes the effective reproduction number. I am talking about R.
There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R. While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this.
There are tons of studies, random e.g.: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1245/pdf
Trying to argue confounding factors vs. the observations is IMO very weak. Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain. It seems like the people who want proof here set the bar impossibly high, no proof will ever satisfy them.
EDIT: adding some more references...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccin...
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests...
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ph...
There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R. While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this.
There are tons of studies, random e.g.: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1245/pdf
Trying to argue confounding factors vs. the observations is IMO very weak. Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain. It seems like the people who want proof here set the bar impossibly high, no proof will ever satisfy them.
EDIT: adding some more references...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccin...
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests...
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/ph...
> There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R.
I think you are misusing the word indisputable, since clearly, people are disputing it.
> While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this.
You just listed a number of proxies that are inaccurate, and/or, generally missing.
Why?
Simply because Covid is highly dangerous to the advanced in age, those that express ACE2, and those with multiple co-morbidities, in particular obese diabetics.
For example, a white male 6' 200 lbs with no comorbidities nonsmoker has the following mortality rate by age:
18: 2.1 per 1M
30: 2.1 per 1M
45: 1.6 per 100K
60: 4.3 per 100K
75: 2.2 per 10k
90: 0.7 per 10k
So, while covid may move through a retirement community like the Death Angel, across a team of 16 year old soccer players most will be asymptomatic, and a few may appear to have a cold.
As someone that has had access to a regional hospital system's covid counts, I can assure you that this is not a disease of the very young and fit.
Our surveillance numbers around covid antibodies is incredibly low because it is only a tiny percentage of the population that is getting tested for antibodies. There are more people being tested for active infections, than there are for antibodies.
Indisputable this is not.
I think you are misusing the word indisputable, since clearly, people are disputing it.
> While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this.
You just listed a number of proxies that are inaccurate, and/or, generally missing.
Why?
Simply because Covid is highly dangerous to the advanced in age, those that express ACE2, and those with multiple co-morbidities, in particular obese diabetics.
For example, a white male 6' 200 lbs with no comorbidities nonsmoker has the following mortality rate by age:
18: 2.1 per 1M
30: 2.1 per 1M
45: 1.6 per 100K
60: 4.3 per 100K
75: 2.2 per 10k
90: 0.7 per 10k
So, while covid may move through a retirement community like the Death Angel, across a team of 16 year old soccer players most will be asymptomatic, and a few may appear to have a cold.
As someone that has had access to a regional hospital system's covid counts, I can assure you that this is not a disease of the very young and fit.
Our surveillance numbers around covid antibodies is incredibly low because it is only a tiny percentage of the population that is getting tested for antibodies. There are more people being tested for active infections, than there are for antibodies.
Indisputable this is not.
You're making it sound like the people looking at this are idiots. Of course this is tracked across age groups. Look at the BC data where it's broken down by age.
Also are you suggesting that the relative portion of the population in certain age groups has changed dramatically? Because otherwise you can still look at the aggregate as indicators.
Sorry if I'm misusing the work indisputable. English is not my mother tongue. Looking at the dictionary I also don't think it means what you think it means. Someone can dispute anything. We could say gravity is indisputable but someone can come and say there's no gravity. People say the earth is flat. Possibly in this day and age nothing is indisputable.
From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat. I mean maybe the earth is flat. Even the guy who responded to me saying I was wrong then changes his mind on that.
Also are you suggesting that the relative portion of the population in certain age groups has changed dramatically? Because otherwise you can still look at the aggregate as indicators.
Sorry if I'm misusing the work indisputable. English is not my mother tongue. Looking at the dictionary I also don't think it means what you think it means. Someone can dispute anything. We could say gravity is indisputable but someone can come and say there's no gravity. People say the earth is flat. Possibly in this day and age nothing is indisputable.
From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat. I mean maybe the earth is flat. Even the guy who responded to me saying I was wrong then changes his mind on that.
> From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat. I mean maybe the earth is flat. Even the guy who responded to me saying I was wrong then changes his mind on that
Judging from the statistics of high vaccination rate countries like Israel vs Sweden,[1] there are a few important questions to respond with such as:
Which vaccine, formulated against which variant?
Vaccinated When?
Against which infectious variant?
At what point was herd immunity hit?
Overall, it appears as though Sweden's approach was better as they are not having a 3rd wave, they hit herd immunity, because natural immunity > vaccination, they have more durable results against future variants, etc.
I'm not disputing whether we should vaccinate some that are old, or have comordibidities, or want to get it. But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population. In effect, adapting the virus to target the vaccinated.
[1] https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/why-does-no-one-ever-talk-abou...
Judging from the statistics of high vaccination rate countries like Israel vs Sweden,[1] there are a few important questions to respond with such as:
Which vaccine, formulated against which variant?
Vaccinated When?
Against which infectious variant?
At what point was herd immunity hit?
Overall, it appears as though Sweden's approach was better as they are not having a 3rd wave, they hit herd immunity, because natural immunity > vaccination, they have more durable results against future variants, etc.
I'm not disputing whether we should vaccinate some that are old, or have comordibidities, or want to get it. But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population. In effect, adapting the virus to target the vaccinated.
[1] https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/why-does-no-one-ever-talk-abou...
I agree all these factors matter. But you're not really commenting on the question at hand.
But since you dragged me into a different debate, Sweden has 66% of the population vaccinated. So if they did so great on herd immunity why are they vaccinating? Is 66% of their population old and/or with co-morbidity? So clearly the Swedish disagree with the idea that you should only vaccinate the old or those with comorbidity? Are there any good examples of countries that are open, not vaccinating, and are doing well? I honestly lost track of what Sweden has been doing exactly but I think even early on the portrayal that they're just acting normally was wrong, they relied on recommendation rather than enforcement... and I think they did worse than their peers.
But since you dragged me into a different debate, Sweden has 66% of the population vaccinated. So if they did so great on herd immunity why are they vaccinating? Is 66% of their population old and/or with co-morbidity? So clearly the Swedish disagree with the idea that you should only vaccinate the old or those with comorbidity? Are there any good examples of countries that are open, not vaccinating, and are doing well? I honestly lost track of what Sweden has been doing exactly but I think even early on the portrayal that they're just acting normally was wrong, they relied on recommendation rather than enforcement... and I think they did worse than their peers.
> But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population.
Fact check: vaccines do not cause variants.
Citation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9
Sense check: most variants of concern emerged in countries prior to mass vaccination.
Short version: why would vaccine-induced immunity provide materially different selection pressure to naturally-acquired-via-infection immunity? Neither are 100% effective, and will therefore allow immune-escape mutations through.
Fact check: vaccines do not cause variants.
Citation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9
Sense check: most variants of concern emerged in countries prior to mass vaccination.
Short version: why would vaccine-induced immunity provide materially different selection pressure to naturally-acquired-via-infection immunity? Neither are 100% effective, and will therefore allow immune-escape mutations through.
Fact check your fact check:
> "Not all vaccines prevent infection. Some, known as leaky vaccines, prolong host survival or reduce disease symptoms without preventing viral replication and transmission. Although leaky vaccines provide anti-disease benefits to vaccinated individuals, new research by CIDD’s Andrew Read, David Kennedy and colleagues at the Avian Oncogenic Virus Group in the United Kingdom, and The University of New England in Australia, has demonstrated that leaky vaccines can make the situation for unvaccinated individuals worse. Leaky vaccines work by enhancing host immunity to a particular pathogen, without necessarily blocking or slowing viral replication. The result is that infected but vaccinated individuals have extended survival, allowing highly virulent pathogen that would normally reach an evolutionary dead-end in a dead host, can transmit. The evolutionary consequences of high virulence are thus reduced and these pathogens can be selectively favored as a result of leaky vaccination." [1]
> "Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts." [2]
> "Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new vaccines brought the disease the under control. But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages. Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble. This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”" [3]
> "Vaccination elicits immune responses capable of potently neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. However, ongoing sur- veillance has revealed the emergence of variants harboring mutations in spike, the main target of neutralizing antibodies. To understand the impact of these variants, we evaluated the neutralization potency of 99 indi- viduals that received one or two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines against pseudoviruses representing 10 globally circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2. Five of the 10 pseudoviruses, harboring receptor- binding domain mutations, including K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y, were highly resistant to neutralization. Cross-neutralization of B.1.351 variants was comparable to SARS-CoV and bat-derived WIV1-CoV, suggest- ing that a relatively small number of mutations can mediate potent escape from vaccine responses. While the clinical impact of neutralization resistance remains uncertain, these results highlight the potential for variants to escape from neutralizing humoral immunity and emphasize the need to develop broadly protective inter- ventions against the evolving pandemic." [4]
> "HIV patient had COVID for over 7 months, infection mutated over 30 times....It is noted that patients who have HIV are not more susceptible to contracting a coronavirus infection than those without, nor does it worsen the medical implications of the infection. Additionally, the fact that the disease stays present within the body of immunosuppressed patients for longer periods of time compared to healthier individuals could mean that HIV patients could be an incessant source of transmission and mutations of the coronavirus - almost like a factory of variants." [5]
If you have high viral transmission against a less effective variant, of course you will have natural selection of a virus for greater transmissibility within that specific environment. If the environment is now a conventional spike antibody human environment, this will promote changes to the spike, and, changes to the overall virus.
Furthermore, when you have a leaky vaccine distributed to a large population where viral spread is still occuring, you promote genetic transfer between viruses that are mutually infecting patients, as well
This is science 101, unless you disbelieve in adaptation?
[1] http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promot...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/
[3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...
[4] https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2821%2900...
[5] https://www.jpost.com/health-science/hiv-patient-had-covid-f...
> "Not all vaccines prevent infection. Some, known as leaky vaccines, prolong host survival or reduce disease symptoms without preventing viral replication and transmission. Although leaky vaccines provide anti-disease benefits to vaccinated individuals, new research by CIDD’s Andrew Read, David Kennedy and colleagues at the Avian Oncogenic Virus Group in the United Kingdom, and The University of New England in Australia, has demonstrated that leaky vaccines can make the situation for unvaccinated individuals worse. Leaky vaccines work by enhancing host immunity to a particular pathogen, without necessarily blocking or slowing viral replication. The result is that infected but vaccinated individuals have extended survival, allowing highly virulent pathogen that would normally reach an evolutionary dead-end in a dead host, can transmit. The evolutionary consequences of high virulence are thus reduced and these pathogens can be selectively favored as a result of leaky vaccination." [1]
> "Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts." [2]
> "Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new vaccines brought the disease the under control. But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages. Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble. This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”" [3]
> "Vaccination elicits immune responses capable of potently neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. However, ongoing sur- veillance has revealed the emergence of variants harboring mutations in spike, the main target of neutralizing antibodies. To understand the impact of these variants, we evaluated the neutralization potency of 99 indi- viduals that received one or two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines against pseudoviruses representing 10 globally circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2. Five of the 10 pseudoviruses, harboring receptor- binding domain mutations, including K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y, were highly resistant to neutralization. Cross-neutralization of B.1.351 variants was comparable to SARS-CoV and bat-derived WIV1-CoV, suggest- ing that a relatively small number of mutations can mediate potent escape from vaccine responses. While the clinical impact of neutralization resistance remains uncertain, these results highlight the potential for variants to escape from neutralizing humoral immunity and emphasize the need to develop broadly protective inter- ventions against the evolving pandemic." [4]
> "HIV patient had COVID for over 7 months, infection mutated over 30 times....It is noted that patients who have HIV are not more susceptible to contracting a coronavirus infection than those without, nor does it worsen the medical implications of the infection. Additionally, the fact that the disease stays present within the body of immunosuppressed patients for longer periods of time compared to healthier individuals could mean that HIV patients could be an incessant source of transmission and mutations of the coronavirus - almost like a factory of variants." [5]
If you have high viral transmission against a less effective variant, of course you will have natural selection of a virus for greater transmissibility within that specific environment. If the environment is now a conventional spike antibody human environment, this will promote changes to the spike, and, changes to the overall virus.
Furthermore, when you have a leaky vaccine distributed to a large population where viral spread is still occuring, you promote genetic transfer between viruses that are mutually infecting patients, as well
This is science 101, unless you disbelieve in adaptation?
[1] http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promot...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/
[3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...
[4] https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2821%2900...
[5] https://www.jpost.com/health-science/hiv-patient-had-covid-f...
Why do you suppose the author of the study you cite disagrees with the interpretation you are making?:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2021/08/08/joe-rog...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2021/08/08/joe-rog...
> There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R
> Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain
Which one is it?
I'm sorry - there are issues with nearly all the links and data you've provided, but I don't have the time to go through them with you.
I agree with you that the vaccine is very likely impacting R. I don't agree that it is enough to matter yet - we could vaccinate everyone and covid would still spread. The vaccines will keep people from dying. Any more benefit than that is still unclear.
> Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain
Which one is it?
I'm sorry - there are issues with nearly all the links and data you've provided, but I don't have the time to go through them with you.
I agree with you that the vaccine is very likely impacting R. I don't agree that it is enough to matter yet - we could vaccinate everyone and covid would still spread. The vaccines will keep people from dying. Any more benefit than that is still unclear.
You're contradicting yourself. You're saying you agree with me the vaccine is very likely impacting R yet you're saying it doesn't help. Which one is it?
We have lots of places, such as where I live, where the number of deaths and hospitalizations and daily cases is about level. Since you agreed with me vaccinations impact R you can also agree with me that going from 75% vaccinations to 100% vaccinations is going to cause that level trajectory to go down? What is your projection?
As to your question "which one is it" there is no conflict. The evidence is indisputable yet there is no certainty. Simply because in this domain there is no certainty. It's not a math proof. It is by far the most likely thing that's happening. I mean maybe aliens are curing people to coincide with the different levels of vaccinations but I've yet to hear some reasonable hypothesis how in place like where I live where seasonality dictates higher rates, restrictions have been relaxed, and there is clear correlation between higher vaccination rates and reduced other metrics (change in new cases/day, hospitalizations, deaths). I think if you disagree with the obvious you should at least offer some other hypothesis supported by some data.
We have lots of places, such as where I live, where the number of deaths and hospitalizations and daily cases is about level. Since you agreed with me vaccinations impact R you can also agree with me that going from 75% vaccinations to 100% vaccinations is going to cause that level trajectory to go down? What is your projection?
As to your question "which one is it" there is no conflict. The evidence is indisputable yet there is no certainty. Simply because in this domain there is no certainty. It's not a math proof. It is by far the most likely thing that's happening. I mean maybe aliens are curing people to coincide with the different levels of vaccinations but I've yet to hear some reasonable hypothesis how in place like where I live where seasonality dictates higher rates, restrictions have been relaxed, and there is clear correlation between higher vaccination rates and reduced other metrics (change in new cases/day, hospitalizations, deaths). I think if you disagree with the obvious you should at least offer some other hypothesis supported by some data.
>You're contradicting yourself. You're saying you agree with me the vaccine is very likely impacting R yet you're saying it doesn't help. Which one is it?
When it comes to exponential growth, the difference in practice between an exponent of 1.5 vs 2 is negligible.
When it comes to exponential growth, the difference in practice between an exponent of 1.5 vs 2 is negligible.
But the difference between 1.0 and 0.5 is not. Where in the west are we currently seeing 1.5 or 2? Have a look here: https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/canada/
That’s misinformation.
Antibody drop off is supposed to happen, it’s different than reduced vaccine effectiveness. Childhood vaccination for measles for example provides near lifetime protection via the adaptive immune systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_B_cell Which cuts days from how quickly the body can respond to infections.
When people of similar age and health with and without vaccination die at similar rates then you can say their ineffective. There is a short term boost from antibodies after an infection or vaccination, but they don’t prevent infection they just reduce infections to the point where we don’t notice.
Antibody drop off is supposed to happen, it’s different than reduced vaccine effectiveness. Childhood vaccination for measles for example provides near lifetime protection via the adaptive immune systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_B_cell Which cuts days from how quickly the body can respond to infections.
When people of similar age and health with and without vaccination die at similar rates then you can say their ineffective. There is a short term boost from antibodies after an infection or vaccination, but they don’t prevent infection they just reduce infections to the point where we don’t notice.
Any links I can read more about this?
In regards to covid in particular:
> Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
> Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
Look at rates of hospitalization and death.
It appears that the Moderna vaccine at least is very effective at reducing severity but does not prevent infection (or does not do so well enough).
This ironically makes it more dangerous to not be vaccinated since vaccinated people are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers.
I’ll take it over nothing. It’s damn good for getting a vaccine in a year. There will probably be better ones in 2-3 years.
It appears that the Moderna vaccine at least is very effective at reducing severity but does not prevent infection (or does not do so well enough).
This ironically makes it more dangerous to not be vaccinated since vaccinated people are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers.
I’ll take it over nothing. It’s damn good for getting a vaccine in a year. There will probably be better ones in 2-3 years.
No, because it’s not true.
You can however read the CDC report that shows vaccines are still hugely effective in preventing death.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
You can however read the CDC report that shows vaccines are still hugely effective in preventing death.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
When I advertise to consumers, it is not important to me that they believe vaccination against COVID-19 is good or not.
I really struggle to think of any company for which it is important that their customers are not sceptical of vaccinations? Maybe airlines and hotels.
Since I can’t see how any company would want to reject customers for making certain decisions about their health or not, it appears to me that it rather is forces within Google, Facebook, and Twitter that do not want any voice critical of their line to be shown. For this reason they (shadow)ban people expressing forbidden or politically incorrect worldviews.
I really struggle to think of any company for which it is important that their customers are not sceptical of vaccinations? Maybe airlines and hotels.
Since I can’t see how any company would want to reject customers for making certain decisions about their health or not, it appears to me that it rather is forces within Google, Facebook, and Twitter that do not want any voice critical of their line to be shown. For this reason they (shadow)ban people expressing forbidden or politically incorrect worldviews.
Brand owners don't want their brands next to conspiracy theories in the same way they don't want their brands next to pornography.
Most of YouTube is screeching, inane people. I’m not sure why brands would care whether their ads play over antivax conspiracies vs guys eating hair cake and throwing up on each other.
I’m not sure how conspiracy theories are more harmful than just tons of other things.
I’m not sure how conspiracy theories are more harmful than just tons of other things.
Tons of inane content ends up getting demonitized on YouTube because it isn't advertiser friendly.
And tons doesn’t. I think the issue I have is I don’t understand what gets to make money and what doesn’t. Since there’s no transparency, it seems arbitrary to me.
Since when do all brand owners share the same values? Why should advertisers be setting content standards regarding what you can and can’t watch.
Many consumers may see you advertising (providing monetary support to) conspiracy theorists, and boycott you for it.
Advertisers have to be concerned about being associated with "personae non gratae".
Advertisers have to be concerned about being associated with "personae non gratae".
If that’s a concern then why are they targeting their ads on that content? You can easy toggle off those options in an ad manager. There are companies who wish to target that audience also, there is no need to outright ban content because of advertisers.
I really struggle to think of any company for which it is important that their customers are not sceptical of vaccinations?
So you've never heard of the entire healthcare industry?
Aside from healthcare, every company of a reasonable size wants people to get vaccinated so that the supply chain can be repaired and they can go back to selling things the way they used to.
So you've never heard of the entire healthcare industry?
Aside from healthcare, every company of a reasonable size wants people to get vaccinated so that the supply chain can be repaired and they can go back to selling things the way they used to.
This is a really funny take on the supply chain problems. I guess it's always fun to blame the deplorables, but you might want to read about what the actual problems with the supply chain are, including on the front page of HN.
have you never heard of conflict of interest and availability bias? also, reasonable people understand that vaccines aren't the limiting factor to supply chains or business, it's politics.
But how often is it well publicized?
Lol Streisand effect
Have no idea what this Brandon song was about. Watched it couldn’t understand lyrics. 2 weeks later it’s on HN. Read comments, people saying it should be banned. Saying it should be number 1 - that it was - but now is 23 and shadow banned. Don’t believe a word. Someone posts lyrics saying pandemic was planned and not real “or serious”
Realise it’s a political Comment. Suddenly understand all the above is probably true and that it was shadow banned.
I love the way communities seem to learn more about the real narrative by shadow bans than otherwise.
Not that I’m right.
Have no idea what this Brandon song was about. Watched it couldn’t understand lyrics. 2 weeks later it’s on HN. Read comments, people saying it should be banned. Saying it should be number 1 - that it was - but now is 23 and shadow banned. Don’t believe a word. Someone posts lyrics saying pandemic was planned and not real “or serious”
Realise it’s a political Comment. Suddenly understand all the above is probably true and that it was shadow banned.
I love the way communities seem to learn more about the real narrative by shadow bans than otherwise.
Not that I’m right.
Social media cannot embrace the immunity and authority, but none of the responsibility.
Social media can and does have both.
The whole point of Section 230 immunity is to basically neutralize the platform's responsibility so in that case they shouldn't care who says what and let the opposing sides battle each other on the merits of what's being said.
So why do they maintain huge and cumbersome speech codes and rules of what can be said on their platforms?
It's simple. Threat of regulation. The tech monopolists are like the old time robber barons of the early 20th century with their mega corps (railroads, oil, tobacco, etc). They are trying to hang on to their behemoths' power and appease political forces at the same time.
The whole point of Section 230 immunity is to basically neutralize the platform's responsibility so in that case they shouldn't care who says what and let the opposing sides battle each other on the merits of what's being said.
So why do they maintain huge and cumbersome speech codes and rules of what can be said on their platforms?
It's simple. Threat of regulation. The tech monopolists are like the old time robber barons of the early 20th century with their mega corps (railroads, oil, tobacco, etc). They are trying to hang on to their behemoths' power and appease political forces at the same time.
Well, also threat of losing advertisers, which is their major source of income.
In many cases, advertisers have been pressured by activists on pain of having their brand actively smeared by those activists. This leaves the question open as to how much advertisers would be motivated to withdraw their custom, absent such campaigns, or the chilling effect of the possibility of such activism.
Well sure, but that’s part of the free market, and has nothing to do with pressure from the government. The government pressure story is just not convincing to me.
I am not sure that political activists employing threats to achieve a political goal should be considered part of the free market.
The CDA as we know it definitely needs to be abolished. It was written long before Facebook and YouTube became the arbiters of truth for many people.
Let's be real. Social media doesn't have a choice. They are pre-empting orders for the government or they have already received them. There's a direct line from the white house to social media platforms. Youtube and Google is a business after-all. And the federal government could make it very hard for them to continue
From a press conference from July 15 2021
> Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.
> MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.
> In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-would-government-ce...
From a press conference from July 15 2021
> Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.
> MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.
> In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-would-government-ce...
Since the government is leaning on them to do it, this is clearly a Constitutional right to free speech issue.
To be clear, I don't know about this case in particular, but the current administration has admitted to be in direct contact with social media platforms to tag "problematic" posts. And they may not even need to because the implicit threat is there.
I used to be part of the "its a private platform" group, but I asked myself the question, what would actual government censorship look like. And I couldn't think of an answer that would make what we have today not censorship.
I used to be part of the "its a private platform" group, but I asked myself the question, what would actual government censorship look like. And I couldn't think of an answer that would make what we have today not censorship.
crazy_horse(3)
If the social media platforms in question are taking down posts on the recommendations (or demands, take your pick) of the White House's senior staff, then I think it's fair to say that they are State Actor's.
That is essentially the novel legal theory behind Donald Trump's lawsuit against several social media companies. He claims that by following federal government censorship requests they are essentially acting as an arm of the government, and thus users should be entitled to 1st Amendment free speech protections. There is no case law to support Trump's claim so I expect he will lose, but I guess we'll see.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/07/1013760153/donald-trump-says-...
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/07/1013760153/donald-trump-says-...
[deleted]
read it again WE do NOT HAVE FREE
we have instead a limited notion of free political when and where it does not immediately cause death of others as that would be denying them life and pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence.
Big difference
we have instead a limited notion of free political when and where it does not immediately cause death of others as that would be denying them life and pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence.
Big difference
[deleted]
I wonder if they will ban videos about them banning this. This seems like a uniquely stupid hill to die on, regardless of how biased they are toward Biden.
I wonder if Google will eventually have an Offical Party Line on everything. Then they'll just censor straight down the line.
That would probably be more acceptable than the way they are doing it now, at least in my view. If they had come out and said "we are pro Biden and used our platform to get him elected, and we have deleted this video because it insults our buddy," I'd be much happier with that. It's their platform...they can try to get their favorite tree elected President next time for all I care. The false labeling..."medical misinformation" in this case...is what I have a huge issue with.
pvaldes(2)
Surprised how quickly YouTube deleted this video, when they firmly resisted both internal and external calls to take down a different rap video promoting violence against Chinese:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/30/22358804/youtube-yg-song-...
I wonder how Chinese Googlers feel about this development.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/30/22358804/youtube-yg-song-...
I wonder how Chinese Googlers feel about this development.
[deleted]
I thought it was brilliant wokeness by the NBC reporter to translate "F* Joe Biden" chant to say "Let's Go Brandon". The subsequent adoption of "Let's Go Brandon" as a code for what people really want to say is hilarious and has become a major meme across America. For YouTube to deny this hilarious turn of events is happening is downright laughable. Clearly YouTube (and Facebook) are in deeply in bed with the Whitehouse, which should make everyone very concerned.
I'm actually a regular listener of Bryson Gray on Spotify and heard this release yesterday. I'm glad Fox is giving him the spotlight. I would argue that by YouTube taking down his video they gave him a lot more publicity than he otherwise gets... good for him!
[deleted]
I'm happily surprised that this post is staying in the front of HN for so long.
YouTube also removed this parody clip in just 1 hour for being "hate speech": https://www.bitchute.com/video/xvjbNKSG3b8O/
For those who think this isn’t political, check out what they posted on the POTUS Twitter the day before
https://twitter.com/potus/status/1451544259992203266
The goal of this is to reclaim “let’s go Brandon” and it’s obvious.
EDIT: for those who don’t know what “Let’s go Brandon” means, a child comment linked to a 40 second video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ8asiDn2_A&feature=youtu.be
For those who don’t watch or attend sport events — this happens at many of the events lately.
https://twitter.com/potus/status/1451544259992203266
The goal of this is to reclaim “let’s go Brandon” and it’s obvious.
EDIT: for those who don’t know what “Let’s go Brandon” means, a child comment linked to a 40 second video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ8asiDn2_A&feature=youtu.be
For those who don’t watch or attend sport events — this happens at many of the events lately.
Boris Johnson actually did something similar.
Iirc, he gave an interview where he bizarrely and repeatedly mentioned the fact that he likes to paint wine boxes like buses...over and over. And it was thought (and, most likely, leaked) that he was doing this so that when people Googled "Boris bus" it would come up with this story, and not the story about the infamous "Brexit bus" (it also leaked that it was Lynton Crosby, a well-known political campaign manager, that suggested this...which does support the claim that it isn't total bs).
Iirc, he gave an interview where he bizarrely and repeatedly mentioned the fact that he likes to paint wine boxes like buses...over and over. And it was thought (and, most likely, leaked) that he was doing this so that when people Googled "Boris bus" it would come up with this story, and not the story about the infamous "Brexit bus" (it also leaked that it was Lynton Crosby, a well-known political campaign manager, that suggested this...which does support the claim that it isn't total bs).
When Google/YouTube/Twitter/Reddit and the rest undertake censorship that is clearly political, it should be treated as an in-kind political contribution. I don’t see why these actions are exempt from laws around campaign financing and election controls.
Leaving that aside this is yet another clear example of the power big tech wields over society and how they will abuse it due to their internal biases. We need renewed antitrust legislation (+ enforcement) to break up these companies, regulation to treat social media/Internet infrastructure as common carriers/public utilities, and the inclusion of political identity as a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.
We also shouldn’t exempt private organizations from upholding core American values like free speech. The largest platforms are as powerful as the government, and given they are under threat of legislative action on various issues and the current administration admitted to being in contact with tech companies regarding “problematic” content, it is also clear that an abusive party or administration can essentially outsource government-driven censorship to overly powerful private entities.
Leaving that aside this is yet another clear example of the power big tech wields over society and how they will abuse it due to their internal biases. We need renewed antitrust legislation (+ enforcement) to break up these companies, regulation to treat social media/Internet infrastructure as common carriers/public utilities, and the inclusion of political identity as a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.
We also shouldn’t exempt private organizations from upholding core American values like free speech. The largest platforms are as powerful as the government, and given they are under threat of legislative action on various issues and the current administration admitted to being in contact with tech companies regarding “problematic” content, it is also clear that an abusive party or administration can essentially outsource government-driven censorship to overly powerful private entities.
This is a fascinating tweet on many levels.
1) I think it's safe to assume that Joe Biden has no SEO expertise, which means that someone with the power to send the President of the United States out for a photo op does. They went out and found someone named Brandon for Biden to pose for a photo op with.
2) To me it's terrifying that Presidential actions are now being dictated by SEO concerns, but it is interesting.
3) I would have expected this kind of thing from Trump, since he was obsessed with his public image. But apparently Biden, or at least someone close to him, is similarly obsessed.
4) Reading between the lines, the fact they responded in this way makes it appear that the administration is becoming concerned with the the growing anti-Biden sentiment that has arisen in the wake of the Afghanistan debacle and issues with cognitive decline that are becoming increasingly harder to hide. That town hall was a disaster [1].
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-town-hall-strange-moments...
1) I think it's safe to assume that Joe Biden has no SEO expertise, which means that someone with the power to send the President of the United States out for a photo op does. They went out and found someone named Brandon for Biden to pose for a photo op with.
2) To me it's terrifying that Presidential actions are now being dictated by SEO concerns, but it is interesting.
3) I would have expected this kind of thing from Trump, since he was obsessed with his public image. But apparently Biden, or at least someone close to him, is similarly obsessed.
4) Reading between the lines, the fact they responded in this way makes it appear that the administration is becoming concerned with the the growing anti-Biden sentiment that has arisen in the wake of the Afghanistan debacle and issues with cognitive decline that are becoming increasingly harder to hide. That town hall was a disaster [1].
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-town-hall-strange-moments...
Anyone who thinks or thought before the election Joe Biden is going to be the one running the country as a president they were naive to say the least. The only reason Democratic Party had to throw Joe Biden to everyone’s face was he was the only electable candidate they had left as the mouthpiece of the establishment. Pete was the other one out of the 15 candidates they had, but then his sexual orientation wasn’t going to fly well in mid America.
Joe Biden doesn’t run the country. DC Establishment does. It always has. The very same thing they accuse others of such as causing big tech monopolies, wealth inequality, climate change etc, the same establishment protects those interests all.
He was the most backed candidate by the Wall St. for a reason. Enough said.
Joe Biden doesn’t run the country. DC Establishment does. It always has. The very same thing they accuse others of such as causing big tech monopolies, wealth inequality, climate change etc, the same establishment protects those interests all.
He was the most backed candidate by the Wall St. for a reason. Enough said.
We were duped! I fell for it!
News straight up lied to control the 2020 election narrative and outcome. We have watched an unprecedented fast fall into authoritarianism. Major networks are all but complete propaganda departments. Biden criticism was swept under the rug to protect him all the while the media held no punches for his opposition. Rational nuanced discussion of pandemic and related policies were off the table and we were just dictated mandates. People didn't vote for this. Our country has stumbled from one self inflicted crisis to the next as the coverage of the failures goes either unreported or censored. Kneejerk mistruths drive doomed to fail federal policy ( border control horse whips!)
This administration is so unbelievably incompetent.
People are rightly angry as hell. This discontent isn't limited to specific groups. It includes: Blacks, whites, lefts, rights, zoomer, boomer. It's not a small group either.
"Let's go Brandon" is being shouted across the country.
We should listen. We should ask why.
We were told successes were failures.
Now where told failures were successes.
People don't like being lied to or ignored.
"Let's go Brandon!"
News straight up lied to control the 2020 election narrative and outcome. We have watched an unprecedented fast fall into authoritarianism. Major networks are all but complete propaganda departments. Biden criticism was swept under the rug to protect him all the while the media held no punches for his opposition. Rational nuanced discussion of pandemic and related policies were off the table and we were just dictated mandates. People didn't vote for this. Our country has stumbled from one self inflicted crisis to the next as the coverage of the failures goes either unreported or censored. Kneejerk mistruths drive doomed to fail federal policy ( border control horse whips!)
This administration is so unbelievably incompetent.
People are rightly angry as hell. This discontent isn't limited to specific groups. It includes: Blacks, whites, lefts, rights, zoomer, boomer. It's not a small group either.
"Let's go Brandon" is being shouted across the country.
We should listen. We should ask why.
We were told successes were failures.
Now where told failures were successes.
People don't like being lied to or ignored.
"Let's go Brandon!"
It's understandable you fell for it. Good on you for admitting it. It takes a strong mind to change their mind
> To me it's terrifying that Presidential actions are now being dictated by SEO concerns, but it is interesting.
Does this really surprise you?
- The opposing parties leadership is censored more than every authoritarian around the world.
- stories about Biden’s son is censored
- bad stories about Biden are censored
- every person connected to the opposing party is being “investigated”
- the DOJ literally sent out a statement saying they were going to investigate parents going to school boards as “domestic terrorists” (at worst, these are local crimes, if at all)
- anyone who has claimed election interference on the 2020 election has been threatened with lawsuits, lost jobs, etc
- a majority of the opposition media figures are censored
- no one could attend the inauguration even
What does this all have in common? They want the opposition to have no voice and theirs to be the only one you see. They try to intimidate and censor such that they have the only voice. “Let’s go Brandon” was too hard to censor, so they’re now doing this. Remove, rewrite, repeat
The reason I say that is now opposition content is removed, they can put out their content.
Does this really surprise you?
- The opposing parties leadership is censored more than every authoritarian around the world.
- stories about Biden’s son is censored
- bad stories about Biden are censored
- every person connected to the opposing party is being “investigated”
- the DOJ literally sent out a statement saying they were going to investigate parents going to school boards as “domestic terrorists” (at worst, these are local crimes, if at all)
- anyone who has claimed election interference on the 2020 election has been threatened with lawsuits, lost jobs, etc
- a majority of the opposition media figures are censored
- no one could attend the inauguration even
What does this all have in common? They want the opposition to have no voice and theirs to be the only one you see. They try to intimidate and censor such that they have the only voice. “Let’s go Brandon” was too hard to censor, so they’re now doing this. Remove, rewrite, repeat
The reason I say that is now opposition content is removed, they can put out their content.
I'd like to see evidence for a lot of these claims that come from reliable sources cause I don't think the majority of them are true.
> - anyone who has claimed election interference on the 2020 election has been threatened with lawsuits, lost jobs, etc
I feel this is an especially interesting claim because the only people i've seen get hit with law suits for this have continually defamed specific companies and not just someone shouting in the street that it was fraudulent.
> - anyone who has claimed election interference on the 2020 election has been threatened with lawsuits, lost jobs, etc
I feel this is an especially interesting claim because the only people i've seen get hit with law suits for this have continually defamed specific companies and not just someone shouting in the street that it was fraudulent.
I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that the Hunter Biden stories weren't suppressed until after the election. Those stories and corresponding evidence were around before the election. They were completely buried wherever possible, and dismissed as conspiracy theories by the mainstream media when they couldn't bury them. It was only after the election that they were forced to admit that the Hunter Biden stories were factual.
Forced to admit that what Hunter Biden stories were factual?
And did any of those stories relate to Joe Biden?
And did any of those stories relate to Joe Biden?
They share a bank account, Joe had an “office” at the failed business Hunter tried to start, and in his emails – if true, as at least some of them have been cryptographically verified to be – Hunter claims he sends a percent of all his income to his dad, a credible claim given the eye-witness corroboration of a similar communique between financial partners affirming an equity stake in a Chinese venture of “10% for the big guy” – who an eye witness identifies as none other than the incorruptible Scranton Joe himself.
Can you provide a link to any of those stories from before the election? I can't find anything about the bank account earlier than Oct 12th.
I don't see how that could have been "suppressed" if it only came out very recently.
I don't see how that could have been "suppressed" if it only came out very recently.
Everything in my comment except the shared bank account was reported before the election, with much of the specific content being suppressed or outright banned from multiple social media networks as part of coordinated enforcement action. The New York Post, a centuries-old newspaper that broke the story, was suspended from Twitter for multiple weeks due specifically to this reporting. Twitter could be forgiven for acting according to its “hacked materials policy” meant to protect innocent doxing victims like Hunter Biden, except for the fact that just weeks earlier they featured tweets from the New York Times that published illegally obtained private tax documents of the president (who was also later banned from Twitter).
I’m skeptical of the argument that recent vindication of a suppressed story somehow justifies its original suppression.
I’m skeptical of the argument that recent vindication of a suppressed story somehow justifies its original suppression.
Bank account reporting:
https://news.yahoo.com/hot-water-emails-uncovered-show-10061...
The senate report has interesting stuff
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Rep...
There’s also that time biden got the prosecutor investigating burisma fired (by withholding funds).
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-t...
Seems an awful like what Trump was impeached for...
https://news.yahoo.com/hot-water-emails-uncovered-show-10061...
The senate report has interesting stuff
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Rep...
There’s also that time biden got the prosecutor investigating burisma fired (by withholding funds).
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-t...
Seems an awful like what Trump was impeached for...
You clearly didn't read my comment. I specifically pointed out that the bank account story couldn't have been suppressed because it only came out recently.
There’s more evidence now, but in October 2020 you had these same emails released. The entire drive was available for anyone to download.
Further, an associate of the Biden family confirmed all the emails were real and he told the family not to take Chinese money.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-tony-bobulinski-hunt...
Further, an associate of the Biden family confirmed all the emails were real and he told the family not to take Chinese money.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-tony-bobulinski-hunt...
I want you to repeat those words to yourself out loud: "the bank account story couldn't have been suppressed because it only came out recently"
Do it twice. It's okay, we'll wait.
Do it twice. It's okay, we'll wait.
Does stories about Joe Biden's son relate to Joe Biden? Are you shitting us?
Stories about Trumps children trend for weeks if there's anything negative... they don't get suppressed, questioned or challenged.
Hunter is accused of being a Crack Addict, a pedophile, selling influence, etc... each enough to sit in the media for weeks and it's all swept under the rug.
Trump supposedly says shithole and it's a national emergency... Biden supposedly gets a cut from his son's business dealings in China/Russia/etc and it's nothing.
How does Hunter relate to Joe? are you fucking serious?
Stories about Trumps children trend for weeks if there's anything negative... they don't get suppressed, questioned or challenged.
Hunter is accused of being a Crack Addict, a pedophile, selling influence, etc... each enough to sit in the media for weeks and it's all swept under the rug.
Trump supposedly says shithole and it's a national emergency... Biden supposedly gets a cut from his son's business dealings in China/Russia/etc and it's nothing.
How does Hunter relate to Joe? are you fucking serious?
> Trump supposedly says shithole and it's a national emergency... Biden supposedly gets a cut from his son's business dealings in China/Russia/etc and it's nothing.
The WSJ investigated that story at the time and said that there wasn't sufficient evidence. If you have issues, you should blame the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partn...
Note the following quote "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden"
If the right leaning WSJ isn't willing to support a story like this, why do you think it's true?
The WSJ investigated that story at the time and said that there wasn't sufficient evidence. If you have issues, you should blame the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partn...
Note the following quote "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden"
If the right leaning WSJ isn't willing to support a story like this, why do you think it's true?
"There wasn't sufficient evidence"
likewise, the laptop story was stopped because "its russian disinformation" even though 1) it never was and 2) those reasons never stop bad stories about Trump and family.
The main point of my post is that rumors sit in the new for months on Trump & crew... but "Journalists" suddenly care about "evidence" when it comes to Biden and Democrats?
"Media" is suppressing bad "rumors" about Biden and running rumors about Trump without issue. THAT is the issue and if you don't see the hypocrisy then you're part of the problem.
And right leaning?
Center: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-med...
likewise, the laptop story was stopped because "its russian disinformation" even though 1) it never was and 2) those reasons never stop bad stories about Trump and family.
The main point of my post is that rumors sit in the new for months on Trump & crew... but "Journalists" suddenly care about "evidence" when it comes to Biden and Democrats?
"Media" is suppressing bad "rumors" about Biden and running rumors about Trump without issue. THAT is the issue and if you don't see the hypocrisy then you're part of the problem.
And right leaning?
Center: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-med...
Rudy sat there in an interview on TV claiming that he had one of Biden's Macbooks in his physical possession and proudly displayed it to TV cameras.
It was a Windows-based LG machine. I can totally see how a 70 year old grifter wouldn't want to spend the money on the correct prop for the media.
Somehow, I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that a guy with sensitive material on laptops worth literal millions is just going to drop off multiple machines and never pick them up.... and that a Mac repair guy isn't smart enough to identify what is and what is not a Macbook.
Maybe the reason nobody believes Trump or his henchmen is because they lie so much. Stranger things have happened. As it is, all evidence about this entire ordeal points towards Trump's team trying to Benghazi Biden. Biden wanted a corrupt prosecutor out of power for the same reason that virtually every other leader of the western world did: dude was corrupt.
It was a Windows-based LG machine. I can totally see how a 70 year old grifter wouldn't want to spend the money on the correct prop for the media.
Somehow, I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that a guy with sensitive material on laptops worth literal millions is just going to drop off multiple machines and never pick them up.... and that a Mac repair guy isn't smart enough to identify what is and what is not a Macbook.
Maybe the reason nobody believes Trump or his henchmen is because they lie so much. Stranger things have happened. As it is, all evidence about this entire ordeal points towards Trump's team trying to Benghazi Biden. Biden wanted a corrupt prosecutor out of power for the same reason that virtually every other leader of the western world did: dude was corrupt.
You focus on "grifters" from the right and endorse grifters from the left by ignoring their scandals and the rumors about their grifting.
You don't like Rudy? Okay... now... why are you silent about Hunter? Joe? other stories about their corruption?
Why do you accept at face value rumors about the right - when many of those rumors turn out to be false or their "lies" turn out to be true? and then you'll support "biden wants" despite the fact that he's every bit the corrupt grifter you claim to despise in Rudy?
"all the evidence" This is about rumors and support/suppression of those rumors.
Again... rumors about Trump spend weeks in the news without facts - or against facts... journalists care about "all evidence" with Biden when that evidence has been proven lies time and time again.
If you support the hypocrisy, then you're a hypocrite. You'll push rumors against Trump and hide rumors against Biden because you don't care about truth.
You don't like Rudy? Okay... now... why are you silent about Hunter? Joe? other stories about their corruption?
Why do you accept at face value rumors about the right - when many of those rumors turn out to be false or their "lies" turn out to be true? and then you'll support "biden wants" despite the fact that he's every bit the corrupt grifter you claim to despise in Rudy?
"all the evidence" This is about rumors and support/suppression of those rumors.
Again... rumors about Trump spend weeks in the news without facts - or against facts... journalists care about "all evidence" with Biden when that evidence has been proven lies time and time again.
If you support the hypocrisy, then you're a hypocrite. You'll push rumors against Trump and hide rumors against Biden because you don't care about truth.
[deleted]
> rumors sit in the new for months on Trump
It's much worse than that.
Virtually all news stories in 2020/early 2021 about Trump have been retracted by cnn.com since then.
Almost all sound bytes from the White House and Squad today are the opposite of what they said pre-election, especially about corona - they said they would refuse a vaccine developed under the Trump administration, and that vaccine mandates were not going to happen.
The most striking is that "Trump's Muslim travel ban list" was originally drawn up by the previous Obama administration. (The list was created because there's several countries that have disorganized passport control, so ICE can't verify any of those documents when required, which means they don't know who is trying to enter the US, when that mattered. With Open Borders, those people can now just walk across the Mexico border.)
It's much worse than that.
Virtually all news stories in 2020/early 2021 about Trump have been retracted by cnn.com since then.
Almost all sound bytes from the White House and Squad today are the opposite of what they said pre-election, especially about corona - they said they would refuse a vaccine developed under the Trump administration, and that vaccine mandates were not going to happen.
The most striking is that "Trump's Muslim travel ban list" was originally drawn up by the previous Obama administration. (The list was created because there's several countries that have disorganized passport control, so ICE can't verify any of those documents when required, which means they don't know who is trying to enter the US, when that mattered. With Open Borders, those people can now just walk across the Mexico border.)
Joe Biden (via Hunter) was/is literally doing the thing they tried to impeach Trump over.
I'd say that's related!
I'd say that's related!
Which thing? Not the two things he was impeached for. Possibly closer to the circulated idea about impeaching due to having better foreign interests, but I don’t believe any formal impeachment attempt was made on those grounds. All talk.
My hot take: Probably because every politician likely does it. They wouldn’t want to set any ball rolling that could hurt them in the future.
My hot take: Probably because every politician likely does it. They wouldn’t want to set any ball rolling that could hurt them in the future.
Joe Biden / Hunter Biden is doing what exactly?
What is your concern? Nepotism? Do you have any such concern for the conduct of the children of the previous president?
HN is not the place for this. Save this for reddit or facebook.
HN is not the place for this. Save this for reddit or facebook.
Surely it's selling presidential favours? The whole Hunter art work stuff is ridiculously dubious...
And yes, equal concern for any president. Trump largely cared mostly about stuffing his pockets full of money.
And yes, equal concern for any president. Trump largely cared mostly about stuffing his pockets full of money.
"trump largely cared" and biden gets a cut from his family making millions on his name while he destroys America.. how is he not about "stuffing his pockets"?
I missed the part where America got destroyed by this. Could you clue me in?
* Afghanistan pull out: Disaster. Many Americans STILL trapped in Afghanistan while Biden looks like cornholio on national TV
* 100+ days of crisis at the border. No law and order. No enforcement of law. Massive crisis that didn't exist on Jan 5th.
* Massive inflation under way. Unseen failure from the top
* Supply chain collapsing by corruption, shit laws and mandates
* Fauci has been undeniably shown the liar we all knew he was before. Corrupt POS with funding lies and experimentation on animals.
* FBI ignores violence across America and instead goes after "domestic terrorists"... aka parents who don't blindly obey the gestapo tactics.
And I didn't say America was destroyed... I said Biden was in the process of destroying - and the above scandals as a starting point... they show an inept or corrupt plan that is in effect destroying America as we speak.
Lets Go Brandon.
Let's calm down, m'kay?
First and foremost, there's a reason why political discussion is not welcomed here, as it gets ugly really fast.
You made a simple point and I wanted to clarify it:
> biden gets a cut from his family making millions on his name
I'm not aware how Biden Sr. is cashing in on his son's "work". Please note that I'm not contesting the fact that his son's role was some degree of corruption, but I haven't seen compelling evidence that the money was flowing back to his dad.
Please stay on topic.
First and foremost, there's a reason why political discussion is not welcomed here, as it gets ugly really fast.
You made a simple point and I wanted to clarify it:
> biden gets a cut from his family making millions on his name
I'm not aware how Biden Sr. is cashing in on his son's "work". Please note that I'm not contesting the fact that his son's role was some degree of corruption, but I haven't seen compelling evidence that the money was flowing back to his dad.
Please stay on topic.
"stay on topic" first it's "I missed America being destroyed" now it's "biden gets a cut?"
Hard to stay on topic with you moving the goal posts...
Can we get an itinerary so I know where the goal posts are going to be? That way we can try to synchronize what "on topic is" since it apparently changes from one post to the next with you...
Hard to stay on topic with you moving the goal posts...
Can we get an itinerary so I know where the goal posts are going to be? That way we can try to synchronize what "on topic is" since it apparently changes from one post to the next with you...
My take on the Hunter Biden affair -- low level, old school, genteel corruption. Akin to the corruption that political "donations" bring.
Disclaimer, I voted for Biden but am willing to call out his failures at any time.
The reason why I'm ok with "censoring" the Hunter stories at that time is that it was purely whataboutism and a distraction. Just like with the buttery males, it was never about the professed concerns, it was about making them look bad.
If this issue (and others like it) could be discussed in a non partisan way I'd be all for it, but it's not. This hand wringing is insincere at best and should be ignored.
I've yet to see anything that indicates these concerned citizens care about principles rather than tribal politics. Happy to be proven wrong, but not holding my breath.
Disclaimer, I voted for Biden but am willing to call out his failures at any time.
The reason why I'm ok with "censoring" the Hunter stories at that time is that it was purely whataboutism and a distraction. Just like with the buttery males, it was never about the professed concerns, it was about making them look bad.
If this issue (and others like it) could be discussed in a non partisan way I'd be all for it, but it's not. This hand wringing is insincere at best and should be ignored.
I've yet to see anything that indicates these concerned citizens care about principles rather than tribal politics. Happy to be proven wrong, but not holding my breath.
The whole central claim that started this was the allegations that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating the company that was paying Hunter for his "services". If it's true that foreign interests were bribing the vice president of the USA though payments to his son in order to change American policy then that is indeed a staggering level of corruption. For comparison the president of South Korea was sentenced to 20 years in prison for a comparable scheme.
Yes, that was claimed. It's been thoroughly disputed. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fac...
Even if there was truth to it (I do think a genteel corruption was in play but not to this extent), these arguments are being made in bad faith. There's no concern for actual corruption as they don't seem to care when it happens in any other context -- it's just "gotcha" politics.
US foreign policy in its very nature is corrupt (it's the lobbying arm of big business). Let's shine a light on it but that light needs to be colorblind to red and blue.
Without recognition of the corruption of the previous administration this dialog is simply partisan pandering. I'd be more than happy to share my criticisms for the administration and its party (including this aforementioned corruption) but if your concern does not cross party lines then it's no concern of mine.
Even if there was truth to it (I do think a genteel corruption was in play but not to this extent), these arguments are being made in bad faith. There's no concern for actual corruption as they don't seem to care when it happens in any other context -- it's just "gotcha" politics.
US foreign policy in its very nature is corrupt (it's the lobbying arm of big business). Let's shine a light on it but that light needs to be colorblind to red and blue.
Without recognition of the corruption of the previous administration this dialog is simply partisan pandering. I'd be more than happy to share my criticisms for the administration and its party (including this aforementioned corruption) but if your concern does not cross party lines then it's no concern of mine.
>that was claimed. It's been thoroughly disputed.
And you will always find news articles telling you not to believe your lying eyes. Sadly most Americans have grown a default assumption that the media is lying to you, which at least in this case is true. Reading the first hand emails gives a very different impression.
"The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine in November aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support on Nikolay’s issue to the Ukrainian top officials above with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [Burisma founder] in Ukraine."
https://thenewamerican.com/assets/sites/2/251024_1.jpg
It's very difficult to read that email and not come to the conclusion that Hunter was being paid to ask his dad to shut down the investigation into Burisma. Especially since later emails indicate that Joe Biden ultimately did meet with Burisma execs.
>but if your concern does not cross party lines then it's no concern of mine.
Make no mistakes I would love to see any elected official that engages in corruption -- Republican or Democrat -- dragged to prison.
While there are a large number of who are just using this to play political gotcha, it is going too far to accuse anyone concerned about this scandal.
And you will always find news articles telling you not to believe your lying eyes. Sadly most Americans have grown a default assumption that the media is lying to you, which at least in this case is true. Reading the first hand emails gives a very different impression.
"The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine in November aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support on Nikolay’s issue to the Ukrainian top officials above with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [Burisma founder] in Ukraine."
https://thenewamerican.com/assets/sites/2/251024_1.jpg
It's very difficult to read that email and not come to the conclusion that Hunter was being paid to ask his dad to shut down the investigation into Burisma. Especially since later emails indicate that Joe Biden ultimately did meet with Burisma execs.
>but if your concern does not cross party lines then it's no concern of mine.
Make no mistakes I would love to see any elected official that engages in corruption -- Republican or Democrat -- dragged to prison.
While there are a large number of who are just using this to play political gotcha, it is going too far to accuse anyone concerned about this scandal.
The whole point of this had nothing to do with rooting out corruption -- it was to discredit Biden as a candidate. This was Benghazi v2 (or higher).
I am among those that see another Trump presidency as an existential threat and am willing to look the other way if it helps prevent that.
As long as the political climate remains as it is I don't feel I have any other choice.
I am among those that see another Trump presidency as an existential threat and am willing to look the other way if it helps prevent that.
As long as the political climate remains as it is I don't feel I have any other choice.
> the allegations that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating the company that was paying Hunter for his "services"
The fact checking suggests an entirely different interpretation - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact...
Not least that everyone wanted Shokin out. And this is before you get to Shokin investigating Burisma re: the years 2010-12; i.e. before Hunter Biden even joined the company. Also Shokin's Burisma probe was in 2014; the international pressure to oust Shokin was in 2016.
It all just falls apart under the barest fact check. C'mon.
The fact checking suggests an entirely different interpretation - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact...
Not least that everyone wanted Shokin out. And this is before you get to Shokin investigating Burisma re: the years 2010-12; i.e. before Hunter Biden even joined the company. Also Shokin's Burisma probe was in 2014; the international pressure to oust Shokin was in 2016.
It all just falls apart under the barest fact check. C'mon.
Agreed. But Hunter's only qualification for his role was who his dad was. It smells funny to me.
What gets conveniently overlooked by those pushing this story is the fact that the only interest was in the story itself, as an attack angle. To hell with that.
What gets conveniently overlooked by those pushing this story is the fact that the only interest was in the story itself, as an attack angle. To hell with that.
>I'd like to see evidence for a lot of these claims that come from reliable sources cause I don't think the majority of them are true.
This is effectively a disingenuous argument when the evidence clearly suggests that so called "reliable sources" are colluding to suppress content that is inconvenient for their political leanings.
Incidentally it also ensures that all of wikipedia leans left, since any outlets which run counter to leftist politics are rejected as unreliable by definition. It's a dishonest, preemptive dismissal of any alternative perspective and it is absolutely toxic to national discourse. In practice you are relying on a circular argument, wherein the self proclaimed arbiters of truth have also defined themselves, and only themselves, as "reliable sources".
This is effectively a disingenuous argument when the evidence clearly suggests that so called "reliable sources" are colluding to suppress content that is inconvenient for their political leanings.
Incidentally it also ensures that all of wikipedia leans left, since any outlets which run counter to leftist politics are rejected as unreliable by definition. It's a dishonest, preemptive dismissal of any alternative perspective and it is absolutely toxic to national discourse. In practice you are relying on a circular argument, wherein the self proclaimed arbiters of truth have also defined themselves, and only themselves, as "reliable sources".
The reason I say reliable is not because I only want sources from one specific side or that say one specific thing. But because there are plenty of sources who are willing to say anything to please a specific party or person which is the exact reason some people are being sued into the ground.
That’s literally what you were just accused of doing. Demanding a source that supports your claim by negating his. The left controls the internet, and has for a while. Hence the right starts new sites where the left doesn’t have control.
The right seems to generally start news sites that peddle in a lot of either half truths or outright falsities. Given this can you blame me for wanting a _reliable_ source.
And guess what the right views the left sites as having? Two sides to the coin.
Yeah but the difference is the mainstream republicans regularly push literal disinformation and false hoods to further the goal of the republican party and themselves. You just need to look at the last administrations attempt to literally subvert the election process and install themselves as president when they lost.
Gonna repeat my same statement. You’ll figure it out eventually, I promise.
What evidence suggests that the entire party is being investigated? Who is hiding that?
"Glenn Greenwald quits The Intercept over ‘censorship’ of Hunter Biden article
" https://nypost.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-quits-the-inte...
"Glenn Greenwald Says CIA Duped Media About Hunter Biden Story " https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/glenn-greenwald-says...
"Glenn Greenwald Says CIA Duped Media About Hunter Biden Story " https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/glenn-greenwald-says...
It's only surprising in that they have, to this point, largely shrugged off criticism. Jenn Psaki, for example, has been extremely dismissive of any criticism whatsoever. Now, I think they are realizing that the (white)house is on fire, and it appears that they feel like they have to respond and cannot dismiss/gaslight their way out of it.
So your concern is nepotism, right? Or is it tribal politics?
This is gross. It's gross because you're right, there are a lot of things that politcians get a pass on. That's not okay.
But you are making ridiculous absurd statements. No, not everyone in the other part is getting investigated. No, not anyone who claimed interference is getting threatened. How would that be possible if up until the last week (and going well into the future), we're discussing this stuff?
This absurd hyperbole ruins whatever valid points you have because you look like the kind of commenter that HN was supposedly above, but for some reason dang decided to bump this explicitly political bs (with the expected political comments) to the front page. We didn't even try to get a better source than fox news?
If you care about this stuff (and you should), you need to disconnect it from political stuff. You're jumping in bed with people that lie.
But you are making ridiculous absurd statements. No, not everyone in the other part is getting investigated. No, not anyone who claimed interference is getting threatened. How would that be possible if up until the last week (and going well into the future), we're discussing this stuff?
This absurd hyperbole ruins whatever valid points you have because you look like the kind of commenter that HN was supposedly above, but for some reason dang decided to bump this explicitly political bs (with the expected political comments) to the front page. We didn't even try to get a better source than fox news?
If you care about this stuff (and you should), you need to disconnect it from political stuff. You're jumping in bed with people that lie.
> You're jumping in bed with people that lie.
Not the OC, but this is quite the claim considering you're doing exactly the same thing
Not the OC, but this is quite the claim considering you're doing exactly the same thing
Is the full video of that town hall meeting available anywhere?
https://youtu.be/R8R2545fHCo
Oddly, it’s pretty well hidden in search, while other, older town halls came right up. I had to select a number of specific options in YouTube’s search just to find it.
Oddly, it’s pretty well hidden in search, while other, older town halls came right up. I had to select a number of specific options in YouTube’s search just to find it.
thanks a lot, not sure why they are trying to hide this one, it isn't that bad... even if most of his answers use scripted answers that are only a bit related to the question.
Last year I had a similar experience searching for CNN's interview with Biden and Harris. In that case, I cound only find CNN Brasil's release of the full interview (with Portuguese spoken over it). Some of what he says is embarrassing, but those parts are difficult to find on YouTube.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epjmkbGerqw
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epjmkbGerqw
Yes, it’s worth noting that this town hall was also a CNN affair, and the only full video I was able to find was not posted by them. It’s on some other random channel. Someone at CNN and/or YouTube decided this was bury worthy.
[deleted]
> 3) I would have expected this kind of thing from Trump, since he was obsessed with his public image. But apparently Biden, or at least someone close to him, is similarly obsessed.
This is all they’re concerned about. Both the left and the right. They hire groups of people specifically to manage their public image. This is why MSM didn’t want negative coverage of Biden during the race.
This is all they’re concerned about. Both the left and the right. They hire groups of people specifically to manage their public image. This is why MSM didn’t want negative coverage of Biden during the race.
The 'reclaim' phenomenon is fascinating. I presume all politicians do this, well, all who have staff sophisticated enough to grok SEO and respond within a few days to unfavourable trending topics.
Would be interested to know other examples of prominent politicians doing this. I'm pretty sure I recall a British politician doing this a year or two ago. I can't remember exactly who it was or what it was about, but I recall it seemed very obvious what was going on - moreso than this Biden/Brandon instance.
Would be interested to know other examples of prominent politicians doing this. I'm pretty sure I recall a British politician doing this a year or two ago. I can't remember exactly who it was or what it was about, but I recall it seemed very obvious what was going on - moreso than this Biden/Brandon instance.
The 'reclaim' phenomenon is quite old, and it has happened quite often in politics that a party or politician has defused a pejorative or satirical label by embracing it. The elephant and donkey mascots of the two main parties in the USA were originally used to lampoon them.
[deleted]
Reclaim “let’s go Brandon” from what, exactly? Never heard the phrase until now. I googled it and all I got was a shoddily written Fox News article that didn’t link to the alleged source interview, claiming it was a huge internet meme now.
I hadn't actually heard of it either, from one of the first results:
> This whole thing got started earlier this month, at the Talladega Superspeedway. Brandon Brown had just won a NASCAR race. And sportscaster Kelli Stavast at one point commented during an interview with Brown afterward how the crowd seemed to be chanting in his honor: ‘Let’s go, Brandon!”
>Unfortunately, that’s not actually what they were chanting. Not even close. The crowd was very clearly addressing President Biden, not Brandon. Only, with an f-bomb in front of his name instead of “Let’s go!”
Video: https://youtu.be/kQ8asiDn2_A
Source: https://bgr.com/politics/lets-go-brandon-the-backstory-of-th...
> This whole thing got started earlier this month, at the Talladega Superspeedway. Brandon Brown had just won a NASCAR race. And sportscaster Kelli Stavast at one point commented during an interview with Brown afterward how the crowd seemed to be chanting in his honor: ‘Let’s go, Brandon!”
>Unfortunately, that’s not actually what they were chanting. Not even close. The crowd was very clearly addressing President Biden, not Brandon. Only, with an f-bomb in front of his name instead of “Let’s go!”
Video: https://youtu.be/kQ8asiDn2_A
Source: https://bgr.com/politics/lets-go-brandon-the-backstory-of-th...
At 0:13 on your video, the crowd is clearly saying "fuck Joe Biden". So this video is explicitly political, given that its name is a dogwhistle for "fuck Joe Biden".
I know it's too late to save the word "dogwhistling" from losing all meaning, but can you at least try to use it correctly?
"Dogwhistling" doesn't mean "saying something that means something else", it means using coded or indirect language to communicate something to a specific group of people while hoping that the general audience doesn't pick up on your meaning. Everybody knows what "let's go Brandon" is code for, and the people who say it aren't trying to hide what they really mean.
"Dogwhistling" doesn't mean "saying something that means something else", it means using coded or indirect language to communicate something to a specific group of people while hoping that the general audience doesn't pick up on your meaning. Everybody knows what "let's go Brandon" is code for, and the people who say it aren't trying to hide what they really mean.
Its a conservative meme stemming from a nascar race where the crowd was chanting "Fuck Joe Biden" and a reporter stated the crowd was chanting "Let's go Brandon". It's now conservative slang for "Fuck Joe Biden"
Thank you for the straightforward explanation.
[deleted]
The video has the lines "pandemic ain't real, they planned it". That's called disinformation, and it was removed as such.
I am reminded of a quote I just ran into from the Canadian Supreme Court on free speech in R v. Zundel. Setting aside any legal questions, I found it interesting for its emphasis on the potential expressive value to disinformation.
> The first difficulty results from the premise that deliberate lies can never have value. Exaggeration -- even clear falsification -- may arguably serve useful social purposes linked to the values underlying freedom of expression. A person fighting cruelty against animals may knowingly cite false statistics in pursuit of his or her beliefs and with the purpose of communicating a more fundamental message, e.g., `cruelty to animals is increasing and must be stopped'. A doctor, in order to persuade people to be inoculated against a burgeoning epidemic, may exaggerate the number or geographical location of persons potentially infected with the virus. An artist, for artistic purposes, may make a statement that a particular society considers both an assertion of fact and a manifestly deliberate lie; consider the case of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, viewed by many Muslim societies as perpetrating deliberate lies against the Prophet.
> The first difficulty results from the premise that deliberate lies can never have value. Exaggeration -- even clear falsification -- may arguably serve useful social purposes linked to the values underlying freedom of expression. A person fighting cruelty against animals may knowingly cite false statistics in pursuit of his or her beliefs and with the purpose of communicating a more fundamental message, e.g., `cruelty to animals is increasing and must be stopped'. A doctor, in order to persuade people to be inoculated against a burgeoning epidemic, may exaggerate the number or geographical location of persons potentially infected with the virus. An artist, for artistic purposes, may make a statement that a particular society considers both an assertion of fact and a manifestly deliberate lie; consider the case of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, viewed by many Muslim societies as perpetrating deliberate lies against the Prophet.
tragictrash(1)
Half the songs out there contain disinformation. Is YouTube going to get rid of them all?
Medical disinformation? Because the typical music industry schtick of lying about how much money you have or how often you get laid probably isn't quite as bad as that one.
Listen to Eminem from the early 00s.
And what’s so bad about medical misinformation vs say talking about murdering people? This is a rabbit hole and the left is gleefully throwing us down it.
And what’s so bad about medical misinformation vs say talking about murdering people? This is a rabbit hole and the left is gleefully throwing us down it.
> And what’s so bad about medical misinformation vs say talking about murdering people?
Predominantly that I'm not aware of a huge number of people who listened to Stan and then committed a murder suicide, but I'm aware of a staggering number of people who watched some absolute moron's YouTube video about COVID-19 and then decided to ingest horse dewormer.
I'm not sure how much of this difference is because music is performative (a song about murders is not typically trying to convince its listeners to commit murders), or how much of it is just because the demographic watching conspiratorial YouTube videos are way more gullible than people listening to Eminem songs, but it's pretty clear that medical disinformation is causing a huge amount of harm, and it's not at all clear that this is the case for songs with aggressive lyrics.
Predominantly that I'm not aware of a huge number of people who listened to Stan and then committed a murder suicide, but I'm aware of a staggering number of people who watched some absolute moron's YouTube video about COVID-19 and then decided to ingest horse dewormer.
I'm not sure how much of this difference is because music is performative (a song about murders is not typically trying to convince its listeners to commit murders), or how much of it is just because the demographic watching conspiratorial YouTube videos are way more gullible than people listening to Eminem songs, but it's pretty clear that medical disinformation is causing a huge amount of harm, and it's not at all clear that this is the case for songs with aggressive lyrics.
Yeah not even close. This has real repercussions, especially to the people that need herd immunity to reenter society, like the immune comprised.
So now everybody has to change speech for a very very small minority?
Yes, if you lean politically hard left in the USA. This has already become a political talking point for transgender people, and all censorship is good censorship under those claims.
No, if you're simply liberal or conservative in the USA. They generally think that speech should be uncensored until it's directly causing legitimate violence (e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening death).
No, if you're simply liberal or conservative in the USA. They generally think that speech should be uncensored until it's directly causing legitimate violence (e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening death).
Speech? No, that's free. We're talking about hurting people by not getting vaccinated.
YouTube is a private company. Them censoring someone is not an infringement on free speech.
YouTube is a private company. Them censoring someone is not an infringement on free speech.
You’re hiding behind legality. The spirit of free speech is most definitely damaged.
Lots of songs tell me cannabis is harmless even if you smoke it all day every day.
Do you infect other innocent people with your cannabis addiction by breathing on them?
Yes, all the ones that contain statements about the pandemic being manufactured.
This is a precipitous road due to conflation. Are we talking about the pandemic as a social phenomenon, or as a spread of a virus?
It's evident that there's been political gain on the matter, which is a "manufactured" social phenomenon, but it's obvious that there's a physically propagating coronavirus that mutates and spreads via airborne transmission.
Unfortunately, I've seen people vacillate back-and-forth on the two depending on what they're trying to assert.
It's evident that there's been political gain on the matter, which is a "manufactured" social phenomenon, but it's obvious that there's a physically propagating coronavirus that mutates and spreads via airborne transmission.
Unfortunately, I've seen people vacillate back-and-forth on the two depending on what they're trying to assert.
What does the president speaking to a boy named Brandon have to do with some lowbrow political chant? You're claiming all boys named Brandon are off limits now?
I'm very aware this was the same argument used to normalize white supremacist hand signals.
I'm very aware this was the same argument used to normalize white supremacist hand signals.
> This video contains content from NASCAR Media Group, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
His name was actually Brandon. That's not the WH reclaiming anything, that's just his name.
(And yes, I'm aware of the Brandon meme.)
(And yes, I'm aware of the Brandon meme.)
It's way more than a meme!
"Let's go Brandon" was #1 on itunes for days. Another version was #3. Another version was #17. All at the same time! Huge swaths of people from from highly diverse backgrounds are unifing against what they see as poor leadership.
They are totally trying to sow FUD into the narrative form political purpose.
"Let's go Brandon" was #1 on itunes for days. Another version was #3. Another version was #17. All at the same time! Huge swaths of people from from highly diverse backgrounds are unifing against what they see as poor leadership.
They are totally trying to sow FUD into the narrative form political purpose.
iTunes chart positions don't mean nearly as much as they used to, since music consumption has mostly shifted to streaming. It's common for meme songs or songs by artists with devoted fanbases to get to #1 on the iTunes chart, but make a weak showing on the more comprehensive Billboard and Rolling Stone charts, or not even enter those charts.
monkeydreams(2)
It's pretty obvious that they went out and found someone named Brandon to have a photo op with. This was an SEO play.
What are the chances of finding someone with the name Brandon though??
If you're looking for one? 100%.
Just such a unique, rare name though.
Depending on your definition of unique. Roughly one out of 700 people are named Brandon according to wolfram alpha
Are you joking?
You're stating you think it's obvious. But I would argue it's highly unlikely, and frankly a bit silly.
So much of YouTube is songs promoting violence against women and this gets censored, ha
How many artists, journalists, politicians and industry people literally said "Fuck Donald Trump" without being banned or censored? What a joke.
1 example - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FjPeF4lkEeQ
1 example - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FjPeF4lkEeQ
It’s not about political speech? Is it?
I think the US government messed this internet thing up big time when they didn't classify the internet as a utility, which I think it clearly is. A phone company can't discriminate based on politics. Neither can a power company. They were deemed important for all of society, business and personal use, equally. Everyone gets equal access regardless of beliefs. We play silly games that overall bring disharmony to everyone. None of this is good in the long term. No one is winning.
I’ve been led to believe that the Pfizer vaccine (being distributed in US) has not been granted an official FDA approval…though the media outlets state otherwise. I’ve tried to look for documentation on FDA’s website with little to no success. Can someone please provide me a link to FDA approval notice of the Pfizer vaccine that is being distributed here in the US?
What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
site:fda.gov pfizer approval
site:fda.gov pfizer approval
This song is similar to Flatline by B.o.B:
- Stream: https://soundcloud.com/bobatl/bob-flatline-feat-neil-tyson
- Lyrics: https://genius.com/Bob-flatline-lyrics
- Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatline_(B.o.B_song)
Flatline wasn't removed by the platform it was published on (SoundCloud), but it was widely ridiculed.
- Stream: https://soundcloud.com/bobatl/bob-flatline-feat-neil-tyson
- Lyrics: https://genius.com/Bob-flatline-lyrics
- Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatline_(B.o.B_song)
Flatline wasn't removed by the platform it was published on (SoundCloud), but it was widely ridiculed.
Seems to be up again now: https://youtu.be/CRjO52VOITo?t=34
I think you could argue "Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it" is not medically accurate and might discourage the fans from taking precautions against the thing.
I think you could argue "Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it" is not medically accurate and might discourage the fans from taking precautions against the thing.
The song contains the line "The pandemic ain't real/They just planned it".
I believe that the solution to incorrect or dangerous speech is only more speech and oppose YouTube's takedown. However, it's absurd to say this is "political" and thus not medical misinformation. It's clearly a political statement in support of a political movement that maliciously lies about public health.
I believe that the solution to incorrect or dangerous speech is only more speech and oppose YouTube's takedown. However, it's absurd to say this is "political" and thus not medical misinformation. It's clearly a political statement in support of a political movement that maliciously lies about public health.
The song says both that the pandemic isn't real, and that the vaccines failed to stop the spread. So the song contradicts itself on the realness of the pandemic.
It is interesting that this post, despite numerous upvotes, is hidden away on page 2-3 of HN. Wonder why...
Upvote/comment ratio. More comments than upvotes implies a flame war, so it gets bumped down.
Proof that capitalists are bolseviks.
[deleted]
We may need alternatives for scientific content. Youtube has too much power I'm afraid.