YouTube Blocks All Anti-Vaccine Content

[Unveiled Artist]

@epronovost Another few questions.

Do you believe people should take the vaccine without researching it first?

How do you know people who took the vaccine did not do so out of fear and ignorance?

Not everyone is an expert and if they take ANYTHING health related because experts who don't know them told them to, I feel that's a problem.

There are testimonies of unvaccinated people who ended up in the hospital on their death bed. Media and government highlights it to get people to vaccinate. If they had testimonies that people who vaccinated ended up in the hospital on their deathbed, why wouldn't that be presented in the same way as the former?

I mean some can say people made ignorance decisions not to vaccinate but this isn't a black and white thing. Some vaccinated people could be taking this for granted and end up in the hospital thinking they are just fine.

It works both ways. The government and experts are very biased and even though this DOES NOT invalidate the efficiency of the vaccine, it does say a lot about people taking the vaccine but not everyone does their homework.

We just don't know. People fear the unknown whether they support that fear with facts or not. It's totally normal until you guys (media and government too) start dividing people up.

Mass deaths are short term problems and vaccines are so far short term possible solutions. We're playing it by ear.

Not everyone likes that. They want clarity, less push, present both sides equally, without segregation, and without division. They want to make their own decisions about their healthcare congruent with their healthcare professionals and experts on television not have it pushed on them as if they are ignorant for choosing anything but what's highlighted. The whole thing is silly and I wish the debate was isolated but as long as people divide there are (not will be) long term consequences.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That would be irrational. There is no such thing as a risk-free course of action with regard to vaccination but the evidence tells us that the risk of the vaccine is far less than the risk of not being vaccinated (which is not only a risk to yourself but to others as well). One example (even if it was me) isn't going to change my mind, nor should it change anybody else's if they value evidence and rationality.

It's not irrational. If the risk isn't warranted then it's really taking it just in case.

It would be irrational if someone with COVID decided not to isolate themselves or decided to be close enough to people to spread the virus.

Did you make the decision solely based on evidence?

I don't believe anyone should try to change other people's minds on the healthcare decisions they make. I do find it irrational to say not give people dying blood transfusions but I don't see it irrational to not take the vaccine because the possibilities are lower than some others. I feel it makes very much sense to take one's own factors into consideration. If not, you're just taking it because of facts and nothing more. I mean with every medication my doctor gives me I question it. This isn't specific to the vaccine (although provaxxers make it that way), just general medical ethic that you don't take anything just because you're told it works.

Shrugs. I value people making their own healthcare choices. If it "does" harm others or harm oneself I can see the opposition but we just don't know who has COVID to know otherwise-especially now vaccinated people can get infected to.

Also, now thinking of it, when a vaccinated person has COVID they can spread it to. If they spread it to another person, depending on that person's health it could kill that person. Vaccinated people could be asymptomatic with Delta, we just don't know. Personally, I've never voluntarily taken vaccines so this is no different. However, you better believe if I did it wouldn't be just because of the information on CDC website. In the US all medical websites have a disclaimer that says this is for informational purposes only. Contact your physician if there is a problem. So essentially, you guys are bypassing the disclaimer (which not everyone needs to go to their doc, but case in point) and taking any smart information and going by that. That bothers me. However, it's a "take at your own risk" type of thing. To each his own.

 

[Twilight Hue]

YouTube will block all anti-vaccine content, expanding on a policy it currently has in place:



YouTube blocks all anti-vaccine content

Since YouTube is a privately owned website rather than a publicly owned outlet, I agree with this decision and hope it helps in the efforts to combat misinformation about the pandemic. It is long overdue, but better late than never.

I don't agree at all.

People have a right to expression and opinions.

If issues arise over any misinformation then that is what the court system is for.

I hope You Tube shuts down completely. The whole site is run by a crazy woman at the helm who is destroying what once was a great place to visit.

 

[Koldo]

@epronovost Another few questions.

Do you believe people should take the vaccine without researching it first?

How do you know people who took the vaccine did not do so out of fear and ignorance?

Not everyone is an expert and if they take ANYTHING health related because experts who don't know them told them to, I feel that's a problem.

There are testimonies of unvaccinated people who ended up in the hospital on their death bed. Media and government highlights it to get people to vaccinate. If they had testimonies that people who vaccinated ended up in the hospital on their deathbed, why wouldn't that be presented in the same way as the former?

I mean some can say people made ignorance decisions not to vaccinate but this isn't a black and white thing. Some vaccinated people could be taking this for granted and end up in the hospital thinking they are just fine.

It works both ways. The government and experts are very biased and even though this DOES NOT invalidate the efficiency of the vaccine, it does say a lot about people taking the vaccine but not everyone does their homework.

We just don't know. People fear the unknown whether they support that fear with facts or not. It's totally normal until you guys (media and government too) start dividing people up.

Mass deaths are short term problems and vaccines are so far short term possible solutions. We're playing it by ear.

Not everyone likes that. They want clarity, less push, present both sides equally, without segregation, and without division. They want to make their own decisions about their healthcare congruent with their healthcare professionals and experts on television not have it pushed on them as if they are ignorant for choosing anything but what's highlighted. The whole thing is silly and I wish the debate was isolated but as long as people divide there are (not will be) long term consequences.

What sides do you want to see presented equally though?
It is not like there is a divide in the medical field on whether people should take the vaccine.

 

[ratiocinator]

If not, you're just taking it because of facts and nothing more.

Wow, well that will never do, will it? People making decisions based on facts! Whatever next! Cats and dogs living together!?

Also, now thinking of it, when a vaccinated person has COVID they can spread it to[o].

Yes, but it's less likely than if you're unvaccinated. Also, if you're unvaccinated you have more chance of getting seriously ill and taking up a hospital bed that then isn't available for other people.

 

[Koldo]

I don't agree at all.

People have a right to expression and opinions.

If issues arise over any misinformation then that is what the court system is for.

I hope You Tube shuts down completely. The whole site is run by a crazy woman at the helm who is destroying what once was a great place to visit.

Sadly, the court is too slow to handle that.
Imagine that if rather than mods we had to rely on the court to deal with the posts here.

 

[ratiocinator]

People have a right to expression and opinions.

Opinions, yes. Dangerous misinformation that can cause death or serious health problems, no.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wow, well that will never do, will it? People making decisions based on facts! Whatever next! Cats and dogs living together!?

Solely on facts?

Facts aren't magic. You need critical thinking to know if those facts are appropriate to whatever risk level you believe you're in.

Yes, but it's less likely than if you're unvaccinated. Also, if you're unvaccinated you have more chance of getting seriously ill and taking up a hospital bed that then isn't available for other people.

True. I don't worry about it offline. If I were in healthcare that may be different. It just depends. Another thing is I'm not someone to support division based on health choice. Moral wise (though not a priority reason) it is like supporting the provax hate. That energy is very contagious. Thankfully there hasn't been demonstrations in my immediate area to feel it. People mind their business.

 

[F1fan]

Some did and some did not. What if a provaxxer decided not to take the vaccine? He changed his mind?

Nothing, he's pro-vaccination and got vaccinated. The only exception would be an ACTUAL medical condition. A friends husband is pro-vaccination but he has an autoimmune disease and can't be vaccinated because the medication he is on might cause adverse effects. So he has to be careful because there are many anti-vac people roaming around with Covid.

Hardwired meaning they have strong opinions that I doubt would change.

That's you. No amount of evidence would sway you. You even said that people should ask their doctors, and you didn't;t even ask your doctor. That's a strong opinion, and you must not have much confidence in it to avoid asking a doctor's expert advice. Gotta protect bad opinions.

Usually people's beliefs and opinions change when they have a profound experience.

That's how people who made bad decisions regret their poor judgment. In the case of Covid it is people who trusted bogus disinformation over expert advice.

For example, if a provaxxer took the vaccine and had a deadly adverse side effect he'd probably consider think hesitancy makes sense. He may not agree with the decision but he'd understand they aren't misinformed just skeptical, hesitant, or just plan won't take it.

Yet this hasn't happened. There have been few side effects. And like any vaccine there are a few anomalies where individuals have a bad response. This is normal and predicted. It's the risk we take as a heavily populated species where diseases proliferate and we need vaccination to protect the greater population.

It's the individualists who are most likely to get sick and die off, which is how animals die in the wild.

 

[F1fan]

It wasn't a question but a statement. Everything I've been saying has been statements both my opinions and/or facts. Unfortunately, I don't agree with encouraging to take the vaccine unless that doctor assess whether it's appropriate to take it. Why on earth would someone take anything from a doctor if that a doctor recommends or encourages you to take something without know if you should or not.

But you admitted that you didn't even ask your doctor. So, hypocrisy much?

 

[epronovost]

@epronovost Another few questions.

Do you believe people should take the vaccine without researching it first?

It's largely useless. Most people don't have access to medical reviews nor do they have the relevent expertise to understand the research material. What the layman should do though is consult a medical doctor to get his or her opinion on the subject and keep themselves informed of the recommandation of their national health agency and that of other countries or international bodies. Proper research, medical doctor's opinion and health agency around the world all agree on the subject of vaccination which is highly recommanded if not outright demanded for all people above the age of 12 beside a rare few exception linked to immune system suppression.

How do you know people who took the vaccine did not do so out of fear and ignorance?

That's a red herring. I am not interested nor need to know the precise motives of people for doing such an action. If they incidently came to the right conclusion despite using the wrong method, I will be satisfied nonetheless. In case of emergency like this one, we can't embarass ourselves too much with motives. Once the danger is largely passed, we can redouble our efforts to teach proper critical thinking skills and basic medical knowledge to people so that the next time around their motivation are rational and socially conscious instead of counting on luck.

Not everyone is an expert and if they take ANYTHING health related because experts who don't know them told them to, I feel that's a problem.

That's the point of experts. They know things that you don't and can tell you what you should do in a given circumstances. Not listening to them would be gambling that the experts are wrong and this is fundamentally irrational, especially in that specific case since the principles behind vaccination for disease are well known, well understood and demonstrable via double-blind experiments and in practice in society. If you are affraid of experts with no intimate knowledge of yourself, consult a doctor who knows you and seen you in the past for other issues and they will confirm if you should take the vaccine. The circumstances in which you should not take the COVID vaccine are very narrow.

There are testimonies of unvaccinated people who ended up in the hospital on their death bed. Media and government highlights it to get people to vaccinate. If they had testimonies that people who vaccinated ended up in the hospital on their deathbed, why wouldn't that be presented in the same way as the former?

They aren't presented that much because vaccines are very efficient. The overwhelming majority of serious cases of COVID-19 are from unvaccinated people. Of course, they aren't foolproof, nothing is in medicine, but that's understood to anybody who has a very basic knowledge of numeracy.

It works both ways. The government and experts are very biased and even though this DOES NOT invalidate the efficiency of the vaccine, it does say a lot about people taking the vaccine but not everyone does their homework.

Actually, health experts aren't biased, at least not to the point to deserve the moniquer. They are the least biased people on the subject of healthcare since that's what it takes to be an expert; very little bias and preconception; a lot of knowledge and experience in the field.

Mass deaths are short term problems and vaccines are so far short term possible solutions. We're playing it by ear.

That's an example of misinformation and or incredible stupidity. To support such a belief a person must either believe vaccine aren't tested (and they are; rigorously). Must believe vaccine are new (and they aren't they are over 200 years old). Must believe pandemics and epidemics were never solved by mass vaccination (and there were many). Must believe epidemiology and medicine is a fringe science (which it's not). They must also ignore the positive results achieved by the current vaccines against that disease and they are important.

The only thing dividing people is misinformation, malice and stupidity of the exploited variety. There is no rational reason not to take the vaccine at this point and time. That some were worried at the beginning of the vaccination drive can be understandable, but over a billion people have been vaccinated and for well over 6 months (the time at which potential long term side effects appear). There are no reasonnable excuses anymore. There are only fools, fooled, frauders and a small portion of ineligible people left to be vaccinated.

 

[epronovost]

Solely on facts?

Facts aren't magic. You need critical thinking to know if those facts are appropriate to whatever risk level you believe you're in.

That's incorrect. You need critical thinking to know what's your risk level which isn't a opinion or a belief but a statistical probability (AKA a mathematical fact) and what are the risk level of the actions you would do to manage those risks and then pick the best solution (the one that reduces overall risks the most). That's critical thinking. Thinking ''I am safe and so are people around me so I should do nothing'' isn't critical thinking unless this belief is actually accurate and was confirmed by others, including experts in the field.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Opinions, yes. Dangerous misinformation that can cause death or serious health problems, no.

Who determines that?

You can have one set of experts countering another set of experts accusing each other of the same things.

 

[ratiocinator]

You can have one set of experts countering another set of experts accusing each other of the same things.

I don't see that on vaccination. There is an overwhelming consensus of the experts.

 

[Koldo]

I don't see that on vaccination. There is an overwhelming consensus of the experts.

Exactly! There simply isn't a major disagreement between experts about whether we should take the vaccine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But you admitted that you didn't even ask your doctor. So, hypocrisy much?

This has nothing to do with me. It wouldn't make sense for me to ask the doctor for vaccine but then tell the doctor I'm not interested.

That's silly.

You think the doctor will not be confused?

-

However, I'm not others. People (remember, it's not about me) who want the vaccine if appropriate they should get their doctors recommendation.

I'm never talking about myself because I will not get the vaccine. No excuse.

But I am not other people.

How to say. Why is this hard to understand?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You need critical thinking to know what's your risk level which isn't a opinion or a belief but a statistical probability (AKA a mathematical fact) and what are the risk level of the actions you would do to manage those risks and then pick the best solution (the one that reduces overall risks the most).

Exactly. Where did I say otherwise in all these posts?

Each person is different. Some conclude to take the vaccine and others do not.

You may disagree with their decisions but that doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Yazata]

Since YouTube is a privately owned website rather than a publicly owned outlet

And currently, YT, twitter, facebook and their cousins all shelter under legal protections against being sued for content on their platforms. These immunities date back to the telephone companies and to the idea that the telephone companies can't be sued for things said over the phone. The argument was that the telephone company just provided the communications channel and didn't control its content.

Except now the internet companies are trying to control the content on their platforms. So if they choose to exercise control over what can and can't be said on their platforms, they should be made legally responsible for all of it. If somebody is arguably libeled by something written on twitter, then he should be allowed to sue not only the author of the libelous post, but also twitter for allowing the post to appear. Very deep pockets there and a tempting target for many attorneys.

If that doesn't work, antitrust law would certainly seem to be applicable to what in effect are information monopolies. One might even argue that these platforms should be treated as public utilities. I don't trust the government enough to be comfortable with that, but it's out there.

I agree with this decision and hope it helps in the efforts to combat misinformation about the pandemic. It is long overdue, but better late than never.

I think that I have more respect for free-speech than you apparently do.

If only one side of controversial issues is allowed access to the media, who is going to trust the even-handed objectivity of what the media tells them? People will just dismiss it as biased propaganda right out of the gate and will start to tune out what they are told, the true along with the false. We are already seeing that happening.

Or even worse, if people are aware that an issue is controversial but are only allowed access to one side, they will naturally wonder how strong the censored counterargument is. They might think that it is even stronger than it really is, since such strenuous efforts are being made to silence it. So censorship of unwelcome opinions might paradoxically be counterproductive, making the unwelcome ideas more credible out there among the public.

What it's certain to do is increase distrust in the media, which is already rising through the roof.

 

[F1fan]

This has nothing to do with me. It wouldn't make sense for me to ask the doctor for vaccine but then tell the doctor I'm not interested.

That's silly.

You think the doctor will not be confused?

The doctor isn't the confused one.

However, I'm not others. People (remember, it's not about me) who want the vaccine if appropriate they should get their doctors recommendation.

I'm never talking about myself because I will not get the vaccine. No excuse.

But I am not other people.

How to say. Why is this hard to understand?

This is incoherent. If you are on an island all by yourself and have no contact with others then don't worry about a virus that is spreading rapidly in societies all over the planet.

But if you are seeing doctors you are out and about in public and at risk for being infected. That makes you an "other".

 

[F1fan]

Exactly. Where did I say otherwise in all these posts?

Each person is different. Some conclude to take the vaccine and others do not.

You may disagree with their decisions but that doesn't make it wrong.

It's wrong when harm is caused to others by this moral indifference and failure at social contract.

So if an anti-vax person has Covid and doesn't know it, but goes out into crowded public places and doesn't care about the pandemic, and he infects dozens of people, and these lives are harmed, is he not morally accountable?