Fighting wave of misinfo, YouTube bans false vaccine claims

Fighting wave of misinfo, YouTube bans false vaccine claims

Ha ha, just don’t ban Lady Gaga or BTS, then you’ll be in trouble. But censoring information, no problemo. Idiocracy.

censoring information

Censoring harmful misinformation.

But censoring information

You misspelled ‘lies’

Censoring harmful misinformation.

Listen to yourself.

Ha ha, just don’t ban Lady Gaga or BTS, then you’ll be in trouble. 

Depends. Did they make videos about taking horse dewormer?

This isn’t “misinformation”. These are lies. As I learned in Catholic school, a lie is something that is untrue, which the speaker (or poster) knows to be untrue, and says writes or otherwise disseminates anyway.

Calling it misinformation soft-sells the nature of the lie and the damage it does to civil society.

We see these lies here on JT everyday. “What you saw on 1/6 didn’t really happen.”

”There was organized voter fraud.”

”COVID isn’t that dangerous.”

The vaccine doesn’t work/is a hoax.”

No dissent or opposing viewpoints allowed.

"Pleeeaaase listen to our political lies! It's all we have left"

No dissent or opposing viewpoints allowed

Which is to say you are not allowed to state obvious lies.

> Burning BushToday  08:17 am JST

Do the ruling elite in your country even allow citizens to use YouTube?

In some countries, Youtube is banned because it's misinformation.

The government claims it's their duty to protect citizens from foreign lies.

Many locals actually support that because the media tells them every night that evil foreigners are trying to spread misinformation.

Every country is using the same playbook.

So from that word salad, I take that’s a “no”?

Doubleplus good, eh!

Doubleplus good, eh!

Why is it that the wannabe Winston Smiths never actually speak clearly or give any factual information? Just poetic allusions so something sinister. Newspeak indeed.

In some countries, Youtube is banned because it's misinformation.

Dobreyo

Actually YouTube is banned in dictatorships because it is a threat to the brutal dictators!!!

That’s the very psychological abuse dictators are famous for.

Of course not, if something can be demonstrated objectively to be false above all reasonable doubts then people that insist on repeating that something are lying, no need for any goverment to have an opinion on that. Just cold scientific evidence.

Every country is using the same playbook.

Nah, Putin for example is playing by an entirely different rulebook.

Bob FosseToday  08:27 am JST

Doubleplus good, eh!

Why is it that the wannabe Winston Smiths never actually speak clearly or give any factual information? Just poetic allusions so something sinister. Newspeak indeed.

Because either the facts are not in their side or they feel a profound need to appear more “cognitively gifted” than they actually are.

Could be both.....

They should also ban accounts with election misinformation.

Let’s all just address the elephant in the room: This really only affects science-denying “conservatives.”

Yeah. But don’t forget, it’s a slippery slope…or something like that. It’s only a short step from banning a handful of loonie quacks to concentration camps apparently.

The above article is a perfect example of pathetic biased journalism; it assumes that what Youtube is banning is in fact false.

...if something can be demonstrated objectively to be false...

Exactly! IF something can be demonstrated objectively to be false, but just saying it is false does not make it so.

It's about time,

Good for YouTube, and the general public.

At least flat earthers are harmless and worth a giggle. Vaccine conspiracies should be gagged as holocaust denial and it’s loathsome ilk are.

Celebrity is no shield, if Lady Gaga or BTS spouted the same lies you think they’d be protected? Ask the last guy how that turned out.

And yet, some "misinformation" that was banned at one point was later embraced and then considered to be fact.

Sounds more like fashion than anything else.

*Exactly! IF something can be demonstrated objectively to be false, but just saying it is false does not make it so.*

As you know, the playbook of conspiracy theorists is to denigrate the source of anything that refutes their claims. ‘Shill’ is a common word in this case. ‘Bought and paid for’ is another favourite.

You can’t reason with minds wired like that. Do you think those who fell for the election fraud claims are going to say ‘Oh, look, there’s no evidence for the conspiracy theory I fell for. What an idiot I was’?

Anyway, I’m not sure this kind of thing YouTube is doing works anyway. In the minds of the conspiracy theorists, banning something can be evidence of its truth. There will always be sources full of cranks and opportunists playing on the gullible and slow who would sell it this way - ‘this is the truth being suppressed by the MSM, Big-tech, George Soros, the Deep State etc.’.

What would classify disinformation? Anyway, the great thing about technology, if YouTube won’t allow various medical viewpoints, there are other platforms that people can and do use that are out of the clutches of big tech. Blocking diverse viewpoints doesn’t create trust or confidence in our government and science industry. So don’t stress out about YouTube other platforms with less fascist restrictions are available. YouTube doesn’t hold a monopoly on Free speech or diverse medical viewpoints about the virus. We should never abolish or limit constructive dialogue on this serious issue.

We should never abolish or limit constructive dialogue on this serious issue.

Yes, but what do you do with claims that nobody has died from Covid? That is not serious or constructive.

Hard to have constructive dialogue starting with that idea. Garbage in, garbage out.

@Burning Bush

Most of your posts are good. However you get bashed for your own honest opinion against JT masses.

The above article is a perfect example of pathetic biased journalism; it assumes that what Youtube is banning is in fact false.

No, it does not, it mentions clear examples that are obviously false, saying that vaccines harm more than help is demonstrabily false, even if you really really want to believe it. This is what is being banned from youtube.

You think something true is being banned? how about so proof of it? what true information was banned and how many scientific institutions support it?

And yet, some "misinformation" that was banned at one point was later embraced and then considered to be fact.

Like what? every time people say this they completely misrepresent it.

Yes, but what do you do with claims that nobody has died from Covid? That is not serious or constructive. 

Well, that’s different, that is undeniably and factually a lie you can give the person a warning and if they continue to make videos that COVID deaths are a hoax then I wouldn’t be against banning an individual.

Hard to have constructive dialogue starting with that idea. Garbage in, garbage out.

I wouldn’t quibble so much on that point if it gets to that point.

Like what? every time people say this they completely misrepresent it.

Like the source of the virus.

if YouTube won’t allow various medical viewpoints, there are other platforms that people can and do use that are out of the clutches of big tech.

lol Frank and Parler eh. Real heavy hitters.

how about letting people hear both sides of an issue and make a personal decision about which one they believe?

I am sure that the latest clips of NBA players refusing vaccination will be taken down as "misinformation" despite being factual.

What would classify disinformation? 

Um, Obvious provable lies posted in an effort to mislead? Is that too complicated a definition for you?

Yes, but what do you do with claims that nobody has died from Covid? That is not serious or constructive. 

Well, that’s different, that is undeniably and factually a lie 

According to whom?

Remember the conspiracy theory pathology. You can cite anything you want, including doctors from all over the planet treating Covid patients and it still won’t cut it for many.

Good that they are bringing their medical expertise to bear.

Remember when Fauci said on TV that wearing masks doesn't really help with COVID? And how if you were to say that on social media now you'd be demonetized and potentially banned?

JimizoToday  10:19 am JST

Yes, but what do you do with claims that nobody has died from Covid? That is not serious or constructive. 

Well, that’s different, that is undeniably and factually a lie 

According to whom? 

Remember the conspiracy theory pathology. You can cite anything you want, including doctors from all over the planet treating Covid patients and it still won’t cut it for many.

All it proves is that "the science" is not owned by one camp. Certain people on this board refuse to acknowledge that there are credible scientists and doctors out there with provable clinical results showing that certain medicines are highly effective when used early. Yet these experts and anyone highlighting their work are slandered as cranks because they don't blindly parrot the approved narrative.

I'll make this very simple for you @prioinking - None of your scientists and doctors are 'credible'. They really are all attention seeking cranks.

Nutcases is a nutshell:

A “Prove me wrong”

B “Ok, this eviden…”

A “Big Tech lies, don’t use google”

B “Ok. You show me the information”

A “Do your own research, the facts are all there, Google it”

B “But, you said…”

A “Lizard space lasers. They mocked Galileo!”

and round and round…

Bob FosseToday  10:47 am JST

Horse de-wormer is bunk

speaking of misinformation. You know good and well that there is a human version available by prescription.

If you have worms.

You're aware that the horse dewormer story in Rolling Stone was swiftly debunked, right? By the hospital where that lying doctor worked.

If you have worms.

I see nothing wrong with the repurposing of pharmaceuticals.

It's nothing new and I believe it's very promising.

Joe Rogan took it and recovered from COVID in record time.

He obviously didnt have worms.

Yeah, because 1 data point does a narrative make.

Except it doesn't. Yet another example of "I talked to a guy/I saw on FB/ I know someone" and generalizing that single data point EVEN IF TRUE, (Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Remember that from your Statistics class in business school?) does not equate to the larger picture in the aggregate.

Thus larger samples, scientific analysis, data behind assumptions.

Hardly the stuff of "I read it on FB."

Prove it. You're just swallowing fake news.

Really? PHD level scientists in their respective fields who did the research and said "This doesn't work. Don't take it." are "Fake news"?

I will be diplomatic and say that you do not exist in the same reality, the same fact-based reality, as the rest of us.

Like the source of the virus.

That is completely false, the natural origin has been always the most likely explanation, even if many other are still technically possible and worth investigating.

What is a conspiracy theory that should be censored is the obvous misrepresentations of people that promote false things like "laboratory origin proved" "first human cases are researchers at Wuhan" etc.

This is a perfect example of how people misrepresent what is being censored and try to make it appear is if it was confirmed later about something completely different.

Remember when Fauci said on TV that wearing masks doesn't really help with COVID? And how if you were to say that on social media now you'd be demonetized and potentially banned?

This is another example of misrepresentation, one thing is to say there was no proof of the value of masks in daily life when there are only very rare cases outside of hospitals and nobody knew if asymptomatic people were important in the spreading. Another completely different is to insist on this after cases in the community were common enough and the role of asymptomatic transmission was clear. They are not the same thing.

All it proves is that "the science" is not owned by one camp.

That does nothing to disprove that the consensus is clear, fantasy based conspiracies about trillions being used to buy every institution of the whole world are simply not believable. If you fail to find even one research institute, hospital or university that supports a lie you want to believe that means the consensus is against that belief. as simple as that.

Joe Rogan took it and recovered from COVID in record time.

Someon I know drank himself to stupor for 3 consecutive days and recovered, do you think this proves alcohol helps?

How can a person's opinion be false?

Easily, if someone says "my opinion is that overeating all the time is a healthy lifestyle" that can be disproved with actual facts.

If someone have "opinions" that can be contradicted this way and chooses to promote those opinions after knowing this, then this person participation has no value on the discussion.

virusrexToday  11:05 am JST

Very well-said. Wish I could like it more than once.

How can a person's opinion be false?

I think Starbucks coffee is too bitter.

(this is an opinion, it can't be false)

I think the vaccine is not safe.

(this is an opinion, it can't be false)

Your opinion on Starbucks coffee is not objective fact. It is opinion.

The degree to which Starbucks coffee is bitter in relation to other brands CAN be proven. It CAN be known. How you like that is NOT OBJECTIVE and can differ with one's preference.

I feel like this is something an educated person really ought to be aware of.

Most likely he does know this and is making a (pretty weak, in my opinion) attempt to deflect from the basic point that there is an attempt to lie and misinform on basic, knowable, objective facts.