YouTube Blocks All Anti-Vaccine Content

[ZooGirl02]

You know, it's good that they are combating misinformation but at the same time, it is censorship and I am opposed to censorship. I'm all for getting vaccinated against covid-19 and I wish that everyone would get vaccinated but sadly, that's not going to happen. I am fully vaccinated with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. I have family members who are against the covid-19 vaccines. I don't agree with them but I don't think that their views should be censored.

 

[Polymath257]

I trust most everybody is capable of researching scientific data as well as obtaining reliable information from credible sources. I'm confident most people can decipher for themselves which information is correct as opposed to which information is false. Therefore, I don't consider there being a need for social media sites to ban information they've deemed to be false.

Actually, I am convinced of the exact opposite.

Most people have no training is statistics. They have no training in epidemiology. They have no training in how viruses spread. They have no training in how the immune system functions. They have no training in how vaccines work.

The very fact that there are people who will drink iodine instead of getting a vaccine shows that people *can't* decipher things for themselves. The fact that people don't grasp that a pool of unvaccinated people means there is a population where mutations can develop and spread, thereby endangering others, shows that many people *can't* decipher this stuff for themselves.

The vast majority of people are, frankly, idiots when it comes to science and how it affects them. This is a result of a very poor educational system in science that has been lacking for decades.

So, no, most people *can't* decipher this for themselves. That is very, very clear from discussions on RF and elsewhere. But then, most people can't handle basic concepts in science and math.

 

[Suave]

Actually, I am convinced of the exact opposite.

Most people have no training is statistics. They have no training in epidemiology. They have no training in how viruses spread. They have no training in how the immune system functions. They have no training in how vaccines work.

The very fact that there are people who will drink iodine instead of getting a vaccine shows that people *can't* decipher things for themselves. The fact that people don't grasp that a pool of unvaccinated people means there is a population where mutations can develop and spread, thereby endangering others, shows that many people *can't* decipher this stuff for themselves.

The vast majority of people are, frankly, idiots when it comes to science and how it affects them. This is a result of a very poor educational system in science that has been lacking for decades.

So, no, most people *can't* decipher this for themselves. That is very, very clear from discussions on RF and elsewhere. But then, most people can't handle basic concepts in science and math.

Perhaps we can at least agree most people are capable of critical thinking, have basic analytical skills, know about the scientific method, and follow peer reviewed scientific research Right?

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps we can at least agree most people are capable of critical thinking, have basic analytical skills, know about the scientific method, and follow peer reviewed scientific research Right?

Um, no to all of those. In fact, very few people have been trained to think critically, to have analytical skills, or to use the scientific method.

And most would not be able to read a peer-reviewed scientific article.

 

[Suave]

Um, no to all of those. In fact, very few people have been trained to think critically, to have analytical skills, or to use the scientific method.

And most would not be able to read a peer-reviewed scientific article.

I'm guessing most people can learn to be scientifically minded persons. I'd like tuition free college in order to have a better educated society.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know, it's good that they are combating misinformation but at the same time, it is censorship and I am opposed to censorship. I'm all for getting vaccinated against covid-19 and I wish that everyone would get vaccinated but sadly, that's not going to happen. I am fully vaccinated with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. I have family members who are against the covid-19 vaccines. I don't agree with them but I don't think that their views should be censored.

Perhaps they could both put an 18+ rating on it along with a banner that would play before the video stating that the content of it appears to be utter rubbish. Or some other words to that effect. The sad thing is that people will ignore that. The 18+ rating would be well deserved but one cannot guarantee that the audience will have a mentality of 18+.

This raises the question of how do we teach people how and when to refer to experts in the field rather than some nutters pushing an agenda?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You know, it's good that they are combating misinformation but at the same time, it is censorship and I am opposed to censorship. I'm all for getting vaccinated against covid-19 and I wish that everyone would get vaccinated but sadly, that's not going to happen. I am fully vaccinated with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. I have family members who are against the covid-19 vaccines. I don't agree with them but I don't think that their views should be censored.

Right. If one thing gets censorship then something else will be.

It's the responsibility of every individual to decide whas true for themselves, and not someone else determining that on their 'behalf'.

It smacks of totalitarianism. Government or otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm guessing most people can learn to be scientifically minded persons. I'd like tuition free college in order to have a better educated society.

And so would I, but unless there is honest grading and a push towards intellectual achievement well before college, the result will be disappointing.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps they could both put an 18+ rating on it along with a banner that would play before the video stating that the content of it appears to be utter rubbish. Or some other words to that effect. The sad thing is that people will ignore that. The 18+ rating would be well deserved but one cannot guarantee that the audience will have a mentality of 18+.

This raises the question of how do we teach people how and when to refer to experts in the field rather than some nutters pushing an agenda?

This gets to a much broader question of how to get people to accept legitimate authorities while rejecting those that are illegitimate. And it combines with the Dunning-Krueger effect where those who are most ignorant think they are qualified to judge for themselves.

Snake oil salesmen have existed throughout history. And people have been taken in and robbed by them equally long.

But, just as you don't have the right to sell rotten meat as fresh, and that you don't have the right to peddle poison as a cure, there will *always* be limits to free speech. One of the jobs of the government is to make sure that the claims made in advertising don't harm the public heath. And, in the current situation, that would include acting against the promotion of false narratives and treatments that could very seriously harm people.

 

[Suave]

Perhaps they could both put an 18+ rating on it along with a banner that would play before the video stating that the content of it appears to be utter rubbish. Or some other words to that effect. The sad thing is that people will ignore that. The 18+ rating would be well deserved but one cannot guarantee that the audience will have a mentality of 18+.

This raises the question of how do we teach people how and when to refer to experts in the field rather than some nutters pushing an agenda?

I'd favor claims being fact checked.. I'd like each social media user's claims or assertions to be rated as either being true, partially correct, or false. Perhaps an expert panel of professional scientists could be employed by social media for fact checking science-based claims. Likewise, an expert panel of medical professionals could be employed by social media for fact checking health claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This gets to a much broader question of how to get people to accept legitimate authorities while rejecting those that are illegitimate. And it combines with the Dunning-Krueger effect where those who are most ignorant think they are qualified to judge for themselves.

Snake oil salesmen have existed throughout history. And people have been taken in and robbed by them equally long.

But, just as you don't have the right to sell rotten meat as fresh, and that you don't have the right to peddle poison as a cure, there will *always* be limits to free speech. One of the jobs of the government is to make sure that the claims made in advertising don't harm the public heath. And, in the current situation, that would include acting against the promotion of false narratives and treatments that could very seriously harm people.

I know of how it is hard to impossible to get people to listen to reason. Homeopathy is still a thing. Even though homeopathic medicines now have to have a line that essentially says that they do not work, people still think that the label "homeopathic" is a good thing. Modern homeopathic medicines often combine their homeopathic cures with real medicine so that there can actually be a beneficial effect from taking it. For example cold medicines will often be accompanied by the generic version of Tylenol. They could have saved money and gotten the same effect by just buying straight Tylenol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd favor claims being fact checked.. I'd like each social media user's claims or assertions to be rated as either being true, partially correct, or false. Perhaps an expert panel of professional scientists could be employed by social media for fact checking science-based claims. Likewise, an expert panel of medical professionals could be employed by social media for fact checking health claims.

I do not think that would be feasible. The number of bogus videos is endless. The cost could be very very high.

 

[Suave]

I do not think that would be feasible. The number of bogus videos is endless. The cost could be very very high.

I'm curious to know who now decides which videos are bogus and thereby removed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Perhaps they could both put an 18+ rating on it along with a banner that would play before the video stating that the content of it appears to be utter rubbish. Or some other words to that effect. The sad thing is that people will ignore that. The 18+ rating would be well deserved but one cannot guarantee that the audience will have a mentality of 18+.

This raises the question of how do we teach people how and when to refer to experts in the field rather than some nutters pushing an agenda?

Teaching won't change their minds. There needs to be inherent value in what's being taught. Ideally, people take classes and learn new things because it provides some sort of use-maybe helps them get better jobs they want or they have a passion to learn. If you don't speak to their values, you can give them all the information in the world it won't work. It has to "personally" apply to that person(s) life.

So, for example, I heard an RFer (sometime a month or so ago) said he wouldn't take the vaccine because a loved one took it and had a side effect (mild but serious to the person concerned). He didn't want to take it. No matter How Much science you give this person as a smart, intelligent dude, his personal attachment and value will supersede anything else unless he felt the risk of his loved one and his self made those facts worth considering.

When people join groups to fight a cause (war, charity function, pandemic, whatever), they have similar goals. When they are with people of those similar goals and similar opposers people tend to stick together like a cult. However, if you send them contrary information that breaks up that cult or group-no matter how factual it is-bias and emotions will always win. It's a human social thing.

Short snip bit:

I'm sure some people are rational minded, but I do believe you guys put too much emphasis on knowledge/content and less on context. Analysis requires both.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here we go (Transcript in the Video)

Have you ever tried to convince someone, using a mountain of data and facts, only to have it fall on deaf ears? In this candid and enlightening talk, customer-centricity expert Andrea Olson delves into why our traditional method of convincing others is flawed, and a unique approach to truly change hearts and minds. Andrea Olson is an Organizational Culture Change Expert, with a passion for studying the often times illogical aspects of human behavior. Through her 22 years of advising companies both big and small, she’s exposed the esoteric, psychosocial aspects to Change Leadership – and not surprisingly, there’s more to it than having a pizza party. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

 

[Polymath257]

I'm curious to know who now decides which videos are bogus and thereby removed.

Well, look at how many promote ivermectin. ALL of those will be bogus. Look at how many claim vaccines are dangerous or have microchips or are ineffective. Those are also bogus.

Who decides? Ultimately the scientists that study this stuff: they are the experts that know the details. At least, they are the ones that *should* be deciding, NOT the politicians and journalists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, look at how many promote ivermectin. ALL of those will be bogus. Look at how many claim vaccines are dangerous or have microchips or are ineffective. Those are also bogus.

Who decides? Ultimately the scientists that study this stuff: they are the experts that know the details. At least, they are the ones that *should* be deciding, NOT the politicians and journalists.

Unfortunately, the journalists are the ones we see that present information about COVID... so, for example, if there are survival percentages and IF they are more than the deaths they wouldn't presents (which I believe there is) that because it undermines (they say) the severity of COVID and if they had the data it would give the public an idea of how serious COVID is apart from the number of deaths.

An example of misinformation or incomplete information would be this: VERIFY: Yes, COVID-19 has a 99% survival rate but numbers don't tell the whole story

"That would make the percentage of infections resulting in survival close to 99%. However, doctors say that number does not tell the full story." In a tweet.

(Case in point)

Analysis/Commentary on the misinformation:
Fact-check: Does CDC release COVID-19 survival rates?

I am/would be heavily surprised that any person would believe (well, I came across a few-but still) that there are microchips in vaccines and things of that nature. I think this microchip and conspiracy theories (as they post for 911 on YouTube) is pretty silly. It would be hard to tell what numbers are incomplete but as for YouTube blocking content, what criteria does it use and is it because they are concerned for others or liability sake.