>Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner so that's what I was saying previously; the transition from movement restrictions and shut-downs
I believe unlawfully removing people from their homes and restricting their movement is against the constitutions of several countries, mine for sure. According to this transcript directly from the WHO, this is what they advocate and recommend. Speaking out against this falls under directly contradicting the WHO.
Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live on Twitch, or, host it themselves on their own servers.
YouTube is part of a gigantic, public company with more power than many world governments. In a very real sense, Alphabet is more powerful than a hypothetical Standard Oil that also owned one of the most popular two newspapers in every single city in the US.
Their ability to shape markets, public opinion and even elections in 100+ countries is unprecedented and very easy to use with plausible deniability. Facebook is a similar sort of entity. In aggregate, the two control more personal communications than the postal service.
The notion that only a government can be a threat to free speech is outdated and naive.
Your snarky condescending tone is not helpful.
Just because a person reaches a different conclusion than you doesn't mean that they lack information like this.
I think it's dangerous to society to give corporations that have as much power as YouTube a pass simply because they are not government entities.
...criticize them on HackerNews.
You mean the Facebook that just banned WhatsApp message forwarding, despite their service supposedly being end-to-end encrypted? It didn't take long for that little sham to collapse did it? Sure, go self publish and watch as the self appointed guardians of the galaxy do everything in their power to stop you speaking.
We're not debating Google here. Not really. We're debating the whole ethos of Silicon Valley liberals which has become, "we're smarter than you and will ensure you think what we want you to think". Except they're not smarter. Having worked there for years I can confidently say that whilst there might have been some merit to that argument a long time ago within the scope of computer science, but years of endless hiring has now made them distinctly average groups of people with no edge over the rest of the world. Yet they continue to believe merely being a part of a particular organisation allows them to instantaneously decide the correctness of any argument.
I always thought that their job was to get involved in arguments over public health.
2. Both Taiwan and China claim to be China, so that statement wasn't even factually wrong.
Taiwan nowadays is kinda forced by China to claim to be China actually.
After all, it is crystal-clear to all right-thinking people that if the world were just, he would currently be in jail. Referring to him as a president is explicitly taking a political position on the subject...
Staying on topic, you grossly misrepresented the situation by characterizing WHO's implicit endorsement of Taiwan's non-existance as a state as a matter of mere "argument over borders".
Why do you think I feel that way? Why do you not feel that way about the example I outlined? Is it because one topic (Trump's criminality) is controversial in the Western world, while the other one (Taiwan's independence) is not?
No, they don't tell you what to do, it is your government that does that, or in this case a private entity.
But anybody with a brain would go for the scientific consensus.
(Even though, just to be clear, I don't agree with what YouTube is doing here)
Not one of these statements reflects any stated positions of the parent. All are hyperbolic mis-characterizations.
> without a whole lot of correctly collected data (emphasis on the correctly collected because data are worthless unless correctly collected, i've personally had to throw out hours of work because of sampling errors)to back anything up.
"Deaths: 191,081" would beg to differ with their conclusion that there isn't a whole lot of correctly collected data. Further, we have incredibly good evidence that social distancing works. We could see it on a state by state and week by week basis in the US, as well as in other nations when they implemented similar policies. There's a whole lot of data backing up lockdowns.
There's also literally hundreds of academic papers on the subject would also disagree. I'm not sure what they expect, but you don't generally get to run longitudinal double blind studies in the midst of a pandemic (although now we're finally getting to the point that you can, with, for example, evidence that things like cloroquine don't improve outcomes).
I'm also not sure what home invasions and human rights violations they're talking about, I haven't heard of any, so I'm curious to see if that's substantiated. I doubt it is.
If you're anti-consensus, you're anti-science.
And yes, it's OK to be skeptical, all good scientists are skeptics, but skeptics don't reject consensus, only denialists do.