https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-facema...
"The findings are consistent with previous research. Health experts have long said a mask provides only limited protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even when showing no symptoms."
Whether or not someone is "healthy" is completely irrelevant when you count that last part, "even when showing no symptoms".
It's not good advice.
As soon as it was apparent that they had ulterior motives by downplaying mask effectiveness, I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice.
And they sure as hell don't deserve to be the arbiter of scientific speech. By choosing to rely on WHO's advice, YouTube's credibility caught flame as well.
And how many people died from COVID because they received this message: "Masks aren't needed. WHO said so. Now they're backtracking because they want to control us."?
Whatever benefit WHO created for healthcare workers early on by lying about masks was probably more than offset by the harm they caused with that loss of public trust.
You're literally contributing to that message by discounting WHO as a valuable resource.
> I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice.
I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world.
Are you just being petty? Are you lying for fun? Something else?
> I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world.
I understand their reasoning for trying to downplay masks. It wasn't good reasoning, but I see what their thought process probably was. But they didn't think ahead to the 2nd-order affects of ruining their credibility like that. Once they demonstrated that they're willing to put neutral data under the heel of PR concerns, then it is perfectly fair to see subsequent messaging from them as more of the same. I updated my priors.
I'm not saying WHO is wrong now. I'm just saying they're not reliable. They are valuable if you're looking for data, but you better verify it and cross-check it. And you have to now consider possible alternative explanations for any message they put out there. That's my critical thinking skills at work.
My trust in public figures and institutions (and NGOs) will return when I see them speaking more transparently. For example, "We don't know enough yet to determine if face masks reduce Covid risk, for the wearer or for others around them."
Oh, and trying to save masks for healthcare workers by denying their effectiveness could never have worked anyway. As soon as it was apparent the workers all were masked up 24/7, the public would simply ask, "Why?".
They could have taken the path you are suggesting (possibly under inconclusive benefits of other types of masks) but that could have backfired and caused a lot more dmg than good.
You can't expect an entity like WHO to solely care about you as a person.
WHO failed in their societal obligation by diminishing their credibility. The misinformation may have increased mask supply to critical workers for a short period, but at the cost of strengthening the anti-maskers' message in the long run. And that cost was much larger IMO.
They created a long-term problem in order to fix a short-term one.
> You can't expect an entity like WHO to solely care about you as a person.
No, of course not. My whole point here is that WHO did the PR equivalent of that CEO who chases quarterly earnings at the expense of their company's future. Except instead of money, they did it with public confidence.
Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines?
Or are you saying that YouTube should allow complete bullshit, lies, and misinformation mixed in with the few bits of fair criticism?
Both options are completely absurd.
No, I don't think YouTube should be in the "arbiter of truth" business at all! That said, I do understand the argument some people make, that misinformation should be censored. Note that you didn't make this argument. You made the argument that misinformation should (in some cases) be promoted, while truthful information should be censored.
I'm saying that the two I mentioned are absolutely absurd. Not even worth a conversation.
The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online.
Ok, fair enough. However, in your original post (which appears to be no longer visible) you stated that Youtube made this particular decision to censor accurate information in order to spread lies (with a "common good" purpose). I don't like that.
Youtube unironically, whole-heartedly believes that "Censorship is Expression". Now the award makes sense. Add it to the "War is Peace" list.
"Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy." """
April 2020.
https://www.verdict.co.uk/youtube-coronavirus-ban-who/