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
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.
How about I listen to what I like and you fry your fish elsewhere?
Practicing for the mental gymnastics Olympics are you now
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.
YouTube has already done exactly this:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-...
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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?
And I dispute the repute of those labeling things "disinformation", specifically.
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.
>Are you truly the victim today, in this pandemic?
So give up freedoms, for the common good. Now that's rich.
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.
The goals keep creeping but the justifications are always the same: People have to be saved from themselves!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=false+pandemic...
(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
probably that part?