> Additionally, due to repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation policy and other channel monetization policies, we’ve suspended the channel from the YouTube Partner Program and as a result, its monetization on YouTube.
It seems that their mission statement is not in conflict with their approach in this matter.
Oh would you people please stop pretending like we understand this pandemic perfectly and all it will take is masks and 6ft of space to make it disappear. It’s ALL speculation, no one has the perfect solution, they’re just opinions. Stop confusing multiple opinions as fact.
The video that was taken down and resulted in the strike was a claim that a guaranteed vaccine existed. It sounds like you would also disagree with that claim, and believe it to be misinformation, as YouTube did, in this case.
Who cares? There’s a billion youtube videos with misinformation on them? Spoiler alert some textbooks are wrong too... If you can’t see this is a means to silence opposition rather than engage in open debate then you’re crazy naive or willfully ignorant. If you can control the topics of conversation, you can control just about everything. No one has that right. No one know’s better than others. It’s pure arrogance whenever you start to think about doing things because other’s might not be as smart as you
Stop confusing scientific consensus as "multiple opinions". You are muddying the waters to shove your right-wing indoctrinated crap in front of people.
Suppose, hypothetically, that someone with malicious intent installed an advertising billboard, next to your home, that falsely accused you of having committed a horrific crime. Suppose, further, that you lost your job and your family because of the false allegations on that billboard. Would you work to get that billboard taken down or would you put up your own billboard to deny the allegations and call it a day?
Proving disinformation wrong does not make it go away and the answer to malicious speech is not more speech.
Id sue the billboard operator and hope that I work with people Intelligent enough not to make snap judgments on people based on what the billboard told them to. There’s really no idea that should ever require censoring. People just need to stop doing things because they were told to but instead do things because it makes sense to them to do so
You’ve proven the purpose to YouTube taking the video down here: to avoid being sued because misinformation CAUSES DAMAGE.
You would “assume” the people you work with are “intelligent” enough to know better?
Man. You have a disgust for an imaginary enemy that’s very hypocritical and oxymoronic.
It so easy for people to invent an enemy nowadays. Youtube just behaved exactly how you described you would in this metaphor, but instead of taking the closet rational explanation, you have to invent an enemy that aligns to this emotionally driven agenda.
We’re all on the same team. You’re just refusing to settle down and see that.
It’s like the whole damn world is so starving for conflict to the point of whipping up imaginary tales to stoke it out... why???
If zombie novels change the infection from biological to psychological and the thing those zombies starve for isn’t flesh but relentless hatred, that novel about people eating their own families becomes a true prophecy.
Granted. I'm still deeply uncomfortable with the idea of Google deciding what is and isn't disinformation. Twitter's approach of appending information links to tweets about disputed topics isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than removal.
Care to explain how its not?
Let me preface this by saying that I have not seen the video, but even if they said that only the flying spaghetti monster can save you from ARDS, I'd rather live in a world with free exchange of information (even misinformation).
Yes, anyone can become their own domain registrar if need be.
As for credit card processing services, generally Visa and Mastercard are enforcing policies of the banks that actually provide the credit; they simply take the heat because they're paid to. But on that note, both the CEOs of Visa and Mastercard are...Republican donors...almost exclusively...and so would, if anything, favor right-leaning websites such as OAN.
I don't actually know who you're referring to, either on the comedian side or the "you know who" side) but if you're referring to Kathy Griffith she is gainfully employed in Hollywood again and was never banned by Visa or Mastercard. She simply lost a bunch of gigs because people didn't want to be associated with someone who thought it was funny to joke about beheading the president (regardless of whether they agreed with her sentiments).
And becoming a domain registrar requires a demonstration of technical capabilities, but otherwise does not require any privileges. Literally anyone can apply to become a domain registrar if they can demonstrate that they actually know how to do it.
OAN spread falsehoods, not information. If they choose to spread falsehoods, they're free to do so on their own website, but they don't have free reign to do so on someone else's website.
(If they want to prove that their claims are correct in the fact of everyone else saying they are wrong, the burden is on them to prove their claims, which they didn't even bother to do. They just claimed that something is a cure for COVID without evidence, and provided an affiliate link to a website where you could buy the supposed cure. That's not reporting, that's advertising.)
You don't even KNOW what they claimed, yet you are so sure in that stance... You are seriously frightening me, the level of head up your own ass is astounding, you must be smelling your own breath!
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. You can't post like this, regardless of how right you are on the issues, or feel you are.
It’s funny how the dame people who said Trump stole the election in 2016 with the help of the Russians also claim this election was clean. Did Trump and Putin have a falling out? Why didnt they help Trump if he was their puppet? Poor sensitive libs struggle with that logic, crying to big government with their downvote of hate. Silence him! His word’s are difficult to refute!
Why do you believe the right of bad-faith actors to load disinformation into the minds of the gullible is more important than the right of uninvolved third parties to live?
It's one thing to spread disinformation that leads people to harm themselves (for example, by encouraging them to drink laundry detergent or bleach). It's quite another to spread disinformation that harms third parties. Third parties have no say in what disinformation the gullible choose to consume but they will be subject to the consequences of the gullible believing what they've been told.
Every polity that has something resembling a right to freedom of speech imposes limits on that speech when it can harm others. Libel, slander, and incitement are not generally tolerated. Restricting the spread of disinformation that increases the impact of a deadly pandemic is no different.
I do agree, however, that the final arbiter of what speech is acceptable should not rest with Youtube or any other private entity. This is a question for elected governments and the judiciary.
And whos to say that YOU are not the one falling for it, hook line and sinker?
If you cant even get a second opinion anymore, whos to say?
Is all talk of election fraud disinformation? Or only when your candidate wins?
Honestly I think its dangerous, so many people downvote without even questioning their train of thought. Like zombies you chant "Gooooooooogle goooooood". Good thing I am not sustaining my body or mind on goodboy points from silicon valley freaks!
And you don't think Libel and slander laws are sufficient? If someone says something obviously untruthful we already have the legal framework to deal with it.
This is just a private company taking control of information. Who is to say that they arent the ones spreading misinformation themselves?
YouTube would not do this if CNN or MSNBC posted the exact same thing. The "fact checkers" would accept the video as new facts, or they would find some other way to be lenient.
Uneven enforcement is a great way to suppress an enemy. In terms of accuracy and bias, OAN is just like CNN and MSNBC, but on the other side of the political spectrum. (eh, maybe CNN is more extreme) Being a typical California tech giant, YouTube/Google has an obvious bias. OAN is the enemy.
Stuff like this happens far too often to be accidental or random.
This was seriously flagged in this thread:
"You don't find it just a little dystopian that the biggest player in information exchange has begun to act like the arbiter of truth?"
What the hell is wrong with HN, flag and downvote instead of arguing. This place has become a worse place than 4chan and reddit combined in regards to discussion.
Im outta here! Dang fucking just ban me already! I am tired of being a gimp among a bunch of brain dead over privilged nerds who brigade and flag anyone who counters their bullshit beliefs.
You literally have to BEG people with the privilege of downvote to elaborate their viewpoints and counter argue instead of just clicking a button, like an ape recieving a treat. Dopamine addicted retards!
We're on different sides of the disinformation control debate but I completely agree with your take on the toxicity of HN.
This place is much worse than most of non-ideological Reddit.
Serious discussion of matters at the intersection of tech and policy, is not possible on HN when the downvote and flag tools are routinely used to suppress posts for ideological heresy rather than low effort, irrelevance, or bad faith argumentation.
Community moderation is incompatible with a community culture that values ideological conformity over respect for good faith argumentation.
An upvote-only karma system would be much more appropriate for tech policy threads.
The way the site is shaped right now just leads to amplification of conformity. I don't even know how you even get downvote rights, and even if I had it I wouldn't use it as a tool in the debate out of principle. I guess some people just don't have principles worth two sacks of donkey dung.
Yup, I know I will never hit 500 or whatever karma it is to be able to downvote, because most of my comments go against what HN has become.
It used to be a place I came for the discussions but more and more often it's just downvotes to oblivion for stepping out of the echo chamber.
So often I see correct information dead and flagged for again no reason I can see but the echo chamber.
Many of the old commenters I used to enjoy perspective from (whether or not it was against mine) are no longer here or post very sparingly.
I know dang comes in every time to say thats not true, every year someone complains the site has jumped the shark, but just because people come back to the site doesn't mean it hasn't gotten objectively worse.
What they forget is that it only takes one of those people to be right.
Years ago I was disappointed in the selfishness of HN. Seemed like the people trying to get rich took over. Then it was everyone wanting to be a founder. Dark patterns and growth hacking weren't seen as fraud but as necessary startup skills.
I still come here, but only until something better comes along, the bar for which gets lowered the worse HN becomes.
The privilege stinks so bad now I have to hold my nose, it's 10x since Covid
I wish dang could see your comment. Many times I've thought 'I cant downvote and that's fine, if I disagree I can say why.'
This should be site-wide. No need for bullshit numbers just discussion.
Hackers used to be the outliers, the nerds, the outcasts. We came together and became a community (not here, this was 80s).
But now it feels as co-opted as everything else. Its cool and hip to be nerdy, we now have things like brogrammers.
I once had a journalism professor insist to me that hackers were people who knew things about computers, and could get illegal unrestricted access. I tried to explain about phone phreaking and such, social engineering, black and white hats, and direct him to the Wikipedia articles. I was told I was being disruptive
Maybe I was but I gave real information instead of tv tropes.
HN is starting to feel like that. People less and less want information, they just want to feel good.
44 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 95.2 ms ] threadIt seems that their mission statement is not in conflict with their approach in this matter.
Information, rather than disinformation.
Proving disinformation wrong does not make it go away and the answer to malicious speech is not more speech.
You’ve proven the purpose to YouTube taking the video down here: to avoid being sued because misinformation CAUSES DAMAGE.
You would “assume” the people you work with are “intelligent” enough to know better?
Man. You have a disgust for an imaginary enemy that’s very hypocritical and oxymoronic.
It so easy for people to invent an enemy nowadays. Youtube just behaved exactly how you described you would in this metaphor, but instead of taking the closet rational explanation, you have to invent an enemy that aligns to this emotionally driven agenda.
We’re all on the same team. You’re just refusing to settle down and see that.
It’s like the whole damn world is so starving for conflict to the point of whipping up imaginary tales to stoke it out... why???
If zombie novels change the infection from biological to psychological and the thing those zombies starve for isn’t flesh but relentless hatred, that novel about people eating their own families becomes a true prophecy.
As for credit card processing services, generally Visa and Mastercard are enforcing policies of the banks that actually provide the credit; they simply take the heat because they're paid to. But on that note, both the CEOs of Visa and Mastercard are...Republican donors...almost exclusively...and so would, if anything, favor right-leaning websites such as OAN.
Generally! I know at least one American comedian who is banned by both for taking jabs at you know who...
And no you just dont become a domain registrar like that. You need to be quite privileged to do that.
And becoming a domain registrar requires a demonstration of technical capabilities, but otherwise does not require any privileges. Literally anyone can apply to become a domain registrar if they can demonstrate that they actually know how to do it.
(If they want to prove that their claims are correct in the fact of everyone else saying they are wrong, the burden is on them to prove their claims, which they didn't even bother to do. They just claimed that something is a cure for COVID without evidence, and provided an affiliate link to a website where you could buy the supposed cure. That's not reporting, that's advertising.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's one thing to spread disinformation that leads people to harm themselves (for example, by encouraging them to drink laundry detergent or bleach). It's quite another to spread disinformation that harms third parties. Third parties have no say in what disinformation the gullible choose to consume but they will be subject to the consequences of the gullible believing what they've been told.
Every polity that has something resembling a right to freedom of speech imposes limits on that speech when it can harm others. Libel, slander, and incitement are not generally tolerated. Restricting the spread of disinformation that increases the impact of a deadly pandemic is no different.
I do agree, however, that the final arbiter of what speech is acceptable should not rest with Youtube or any other private entity. This is a question for elected governments and the judiciary.
We must hedge our bets and let disinformation be cut down wherever rational minds exist (for now).
If you cant even get a second opinion anymore, whos to say? Is all talk of election fraud disinformation? Or only when your candidate wins?
Honestly I think its dangerous, so many people downvote without even questioning their train of thought. Like zombies you chant "Gooooooooogle goooooood". Good thing I am not sustaining my body or mind on goodboy points from silicon valley freaks!
All you guys are seriously not right in the head.
This is just a private company taking control of information. Who is to say that they arent the ones spreading misinformation themselves?
YouTube would not do this if CNN or MSNBC posted the exact same thing. The "fact checkers" would accept the video as new facts, or they would find some other way to be lenient.
Uneven enforcement is a great way to suppress an enemy. In terms of accuracy and bias, OAN is just like CNN and MSNBC, but on the other side of the political spectrum. (eh, maybe CNN is more extreme) Being a typical California tech giant, YouTube/Google has an obvious bias. OAN is the enemy.
Stuff like this happens far too often to be accidental or random.
What the hell is wrong with HN, flag and downvote instead of arguing. This place has become a worse place than 4chan and reddit combined in regards to discussion.
Im outta here! Dang fucking just ban me already! I am tired of being a gimp among a bunch of brain dead over privilged nerds who brigade and flag anyone who counters their bullshit beliefs.
You literally have to BEG people with the privilege of downvote to elaborate their viewpoints and counter argue instead of just clicking a button, like an ape recieving a treat. Dopamine addicted retards!
SNEED!
This place is much worse than most of non-ideological Reddit.
Serious discussion of matters at the intersection of tech and policy, is not possible on HN when the downvote and flag tools are routinely used to suppress posts for ideological heresy rather than low effort, irrelevance, or bad faith argumentation.
Community moderation is incompatible with a community culture that values ideological conformity over respect for good faith argumentation.
An upvote-only karma system would be much more appropriate for tech policy threads.
It used to be a place I came for the discussions but more and more often it's just downvotes to oblivion for stepping out of the echo chamber.
So often I see correct information dead and flagged for again no reason I can see but the echo chamber.
Many of the old commenters I used to enjoy perspective from (whether or not it was against mine) are no longer here or post very sparingly.
I know dang comes in every time to say thats not true, every year someone complains the site has jumped the shark, but just because people come back to the site doesn't mean it hasn't gotten objectively worse.
What they forget is that it only takes one of those people to be right.
Years ago I was disappointed in the selfishness of HN. Seemed like the people trying to get rich took over. Then it was everyone wanting to be a founder. Dark patterns and growth hacking weren't seen as fraud but as necessary startup skills.
I still come here, but only until something better comes along, the bar for which gets lowered the worse HN becomes.
The privilege stinks so bad now I have to hold my nose, it's 10x since Covid
This should be site-wide. No need for bullshit numbers just discussion.
Hackers used to be the outliers, the nerds, the outcasts. We came together and became a community (not here, this was 80s).
But now it feels as co-opted as everything else. Its cool and hip to be nerdy, we now have things like brogrammers.
I once had a journalism professor insist to me that hackers were people who knew things about computers, and could get illegal unrestricted access. I tried to explain about phone phreaking and such, social engineering, black and white hats, and direct him to the Wikipedia articles. I was told I was being disruptive
Maybe I was but I gave real information instead of tv tropes.
HN is starting to feel like that. People less and less want information, they just want to feel good.