YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 <comment><USER2> Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." [0]

Where we live, due to local _laws_ , we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO?

I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :(

We keep trying to encourage our kids to ask good questions, then I see what's happening out there in the world, and I wonder when the grown-ups are going to start asking good questions...

[0] [https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel- coronavirus-2...](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel- coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks)

<comment><USER3> _I fear there isn 't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :(_

The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say."

Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many of them were brave, noble, and well meaning, and had an ideology that told them they were in the right.

How are the employees of YouTube or any tech company exempt from those forces? What makes them somehow wiser or smarter than everyone else in history?

<comment><USER4> This sort of weird slippery slope argument that banning obviously bad advice somehow leads to youtube becoming a "horrible oppressor" doesn't pass the smell test.

By this reasoning, _any_ platform that features _any form of moderation at all_ will devolve into oppression. Is HN at risk of becoming oppressive due to banning flamebait and spam comments?

<comment><USER5> One of the youtube series I watch normally features pork ribs. Like, the shrinkwrapped package you get from the grocery store. Well that video the creator couldn't get pork ribs because of coronavirus and so had used beef ribs instead - and couldn't even plainly say the reason why. Instead he had to hold up a bottle of corona beer and say "Well, it's due to beer, if you get my drift."

Is Youtube actually in the right here? The guy just wanted to say he couldn't find pork ribs. He wasn't telling anyone to inject bleach or chug quinine.

That isn't just clamping down on the conspiracy nutters. This has repeatedly become an issue in multiple videos from videogame commentary to cooking shows I watch. Youtube and other large corporates often see themselves as leading the dumb cattle that is the general population and frankly it's outright insulting and their handling of this situation is abysmal.

But also it's going to get worse. The more Youtube can get away with these things, the more they'll do them. Don't be surprised when this extends even more to protected political speech (Israel BDS, free HK, Taiwanese independence, etc) because it's happened before and it will happen again.

<comment><USER4> I'm not arguing that youtube is doing a good job, or that youtube's brand of corona-related censorship is in any way making a positive impact.

I'm arguing against the parent comment that essentially makes the argument that _all forms_ of censorship/moderation are bad and inherently lead to oppression.

If you instead want to argue that youtube's specific policies regarding coronavirus are bad/harmful/etc, go ahead, I won't stop you.

<comment><USER5> Hn is a moderated community, and it's value partially comes from it's moderation. It's restricted to a set of topics, and if things get too out of hand whether it's a personal attack or just insanity, the comment is going to get removed.

Except you can view the dead comments. You can still see the removed stories. You have to opt-in to that, but it's just a checkbox in your profile. HN is moderated, but there is no censorship.

The issue with censorship is that it has to grow. You can't defend taking down say, videos about the Israel BDS movement, and not also take down videos about Free HK. Either the platform openly admits that it's biased or it has to keep growing what can't be discussed and inevitably that's going to start including content that everyone feels shouldn't be censored.

<comment><USER4> This is the same with your example though? Anyone can upload a video talking about the coronavirus, they just might not receive money for it (they'll be demonetized). Youtube only seems to be taking an active 'censorship' approach for comments spreading bad information about the virus. Whether or not "against WHO advice" is a good metric for this is debatable, but the goal seems worthwhile.

> The issue with censorship is that it has to grow. You can't defend taking > down say, videos about the Israel BDS movement, and not also take down > videos about Free HK.

I fail to see how this property, if it exists, is any less present in a "moderated but without explicit censhorship" system.

<comment><USER5> Demonetization is a form of censorship when Youtube is your paycheck.

If your employer threatened to not pay you because you took a political position that would be abhorrent and oppressive treatment. Youtube is not a direct employee and it's more of a business partner, but it's wielding it's power to control speech - which is oppressive.

<comment><USER6> I wonder - does YouTube still serve ads in 'demonetized' videos and just cut out the creators commissions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics.

Yes, there's a lot of information out there about SARS-COV2 and COVID-19 infections out there that are downright misleading at best and life threatening at worst.

No, censoring that content including videos is NOT the role of a hosting platform.

We already have examples of central authorities pushing "information" that they agree with and supressing information they believe is "incorrect" \- as a freeish country, we should absolutely not encourage this behavior.

The argument can be made that Youtube is a private company and free to do as they please.

I personally dont agree with that argument - to a regular random person, Youtube is synonymous with video content.

Youtube is the news.

Perhaps one solution for Youtube would be to demonetize and label such content as "unsafe" aka "don't sue me bro mode".

Anyone who's a minor doesnt get to see this "unsafe" content.

Anyone who watches the content with "unsafe" mode on, sees the content.

Give customers the choice to choose and make up their own minds.

Removing content with the authority of being the primary video content platform? They don't get away so easy.

With power comes responsibility.

They have to handle this another way and this, is not it.

<comment><USER8> Misinformation is killing people. Given that, who should YouTube use as a source of truth?

The US government? Bill Nye the Science Guy?

Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona?

<comment><USER9> 4chan was taking the virus seriously back in January, when the WHO was denying the need for travel lockdowns. The misinformation coming out of the WHO is what killed people, not the early warning that 4chan gave us.

Edit: note that in both replies to my comment, none of the specific facts I mentioned were responded to. The response of the countries is being blamed, the date I mentioned is being ignored; but I am comparing the information coming publicly out of the WHO in January to the information coming out of 4chan in January.

In hindsight, if you compared the information from both at that time, you would have had a better idea of the real situation if you believed 4chan over the WHO.

<comment><USER10> Do you really believe that? Check archive.org. The WHO published info on CV including technical guidance for the health ministries of nation states, at least as early as January 24. It's safe to assume that national delegates would have been in discussions with WHO ahead of this. Remember, there's only one WHO and yet we have many different responses and outcomes in different countries. The only logical conclusion is that those nations who's responses led to poor outcomes should look to their own interpretation of WHO advice and the decisions they themselves made, as the cause of poor outcomes.

<comment><USER11> In Februari the WHO urges to not impose travel bans:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who- chie...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chief-says- widespread-travel-bans-not-needed-to-beat-china-virus-idUSKBN1ZX1H3)

Nations who handled the crisis the best, imposed travel bans early on and were criticised by the WHO.

[https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the- china...](https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the-china- coronavirus-is-officially-an-international-emergency/)

<comment><USER10> His actual speech (that Reuter's reported on).

[https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director- general-...](https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s- statement-on-ihr-emergency-committee-on-novel-coronavirus-\(2019-ncov\))

The key sentence that Tedros is being criticised for is:

"First, there is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade. WHO doesn't recommend limiting trade and movement."

However, in the same speech:

" we must all act together now to limit further spread. The vast majority of cases outside China have a travel history to Wuhan, or contact with someone with a travel history to Wuhan"

and

"Our greatest concern is the potential for the virus to spread to countries with weaker health systems, and which are ill-prepared to deal with it"

This leads me to believe that perhaps he was trying to have it both ways:

\- flag the need for action

\- keep a major player from "losing face".

I don't envy his job, or in fact any of the UN organisations. You're at the mercy of your big funders; you're trying to influence hundreds of countries who'd rather focus on their own internal politics; you have no actual power. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. How on earth do you move the needle at all in that kind of environment?

<comment><USER9> His job is world health. If he put "saving face" for China, or trying to keep his job, over recommending a travel ban to prevent the spread of a deadly virus, then he is incompetent and he failed to prevent deaths... and my point still stands.

<comment><USER10> Your point only stands if the health ministers of the countries receiving that advice, had no responsibility for the advice they gave their own governments. Or do you believe that nation states bear no responsibility for their own decisions? Remember, WHO has no actual authority to impose anything. National governments do. Look to your own health minister and leaders for where to sheet the blame. Anybody hearing or reading that speech above that didn't act - especially given all the actual technical guidance being offered by the WHO at the same time - should be looking in the mirror. A point I made elsewhere still stands. From the same source of advice - WHO - multiple nation states took different courses of action. Why do you think that is? They surely can't all attribute their decisions to WHO otherwise all countries would have acted the same way. Clearly that's not what's happened.

<comment><USER9> The WHO is a source of information. The decisions made based on that information by various countries is completely irrelevant to anything I'm trying to say.

The WHO chose to recommend against travel bans. This was the information they shared with the world. If countries chose to enact such bans anyway - good for them: they knew better than to believe the WHO. The WHO, compared with 4chan, was in January the inferior source of public information about the virus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I guess if this were the 1500s YouTube would only have us post videos that confirm that witches and heretics should be burned at the stake. Maybe it would be okay to talk about a few more crusades.

Mankind improves because systems become big, rigid, and unable to evolve. People come along and point that out, suggesting various theories about how those systems got that way, the reasons why they are wrong, and offering suggestions for improvement.

It needs to be said that 99% of the time, these people are wrong. They're emotionally ill, they don't understand the situation, they have perhaps virulent and insidious ideologies that blind them to reality. These are exactly the people you want in the public square. They teach the youth about critical thinking and how to reason about your view of the world. They let the rest of us keep an eye on them in case they get violent. Plus, many of them are just happy to yell into the void; without that, there would be a lot more violence than there would be otherwise.

But every 1% of the time, those folks are actually right. Slowly they convince the rest of us. Our species improves.

YouTube can't do this. Whatever their intentions, they are directly acting against the health of our species by creating a new orthodoxy. They have to be stopped, whether broken up, taxed, or banned. It's not that the WHO is wrong here. They're probably right. It's that YouTube is making it so that the WHO _can never be wrong_ , ie, we can never have a public discussion about their policies. Worse still, history has shown us that when you start going down this route you are actually acting against your society's interest. People treated as if they can't think for themselves turn into a population that can't think for itself. The WHO is fine, it's YouTube that has become the real enemy to public health by doing this.

<comment><USER13> > Mankind improves because systems become big, rigid, and unable to evolve. > People come along and point that out, suggesting various theories about how > those systems got that way, the reasons why they are wrong, and offering > suggestions for improvement.

Actually, this sounds like "Institutional Sclerosis", which is actually one of the main reasons that nations fail - some structure becomes more important than the welfare of society, be it a leader, some entity (like the military) or great collection of power by few people.

This is exactly the situation that we see today that makes our society unable to evolve, and will guarantee the current slide continues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Free speech (well, most freedoms, really) will die the day we decide "saving lives" is worth _any_ cost.

Heck, we already decided trashing the economy is worth "saving lives" (how many?), I imagine some people would be overjoyed to remove the 1st amendment in order to lower disease spread, lower the suicide rate of those vulnerable to hate speech, etc. And why stop there? Remove 2nd amendment and you can save even more lives! Too much freedom just seems to lead to people dying, because people make bad choices that affect others.

<comment><USER15> You're on a slippery slope and don't consider that this is an exceptional situation. The danger of losing civil liberties comes when the exception becomes the rule.

AFAIK, no amendments have been violated since YouTube is a private entity. They can editorialize what they, how they want. It's is their liberty to make a choice here, the same as your liberty to not support that choice.

<comment><USER16> _since YouTube is a private entity_

That's a slippery slope right there, a very dangerous one. In the US, spaces where one engages in political activities have moved from public (town square in front of City Hall) to private (the mall plus parking lot). That's a problem.

The other thing is monopolies. In the past, when you were on the fringes of the spectrum you'd publish with your fringe publisher and could at least get your message out. Nowadays Youtube suppresses the neonazis. That's nice and good, as long as it's nazis, but what if they don't like what you have to say? Big publishers and government have a symbiotic relationship, and there is always a _sprachregelung_.

<comment><USER17> That's not a slippery slope but your point further on is valid. The privatization of the town square carries the potential to erode our civil liberties as these new public centers aren't held to the same standards. The question here is then how do we protect that.

Which freedoms do we give up here? Freedom of the individual or freedom of enterprise? Imo if a corporate entity decides to act like a public space, then it should be treated like one and held accountable as such. Otherwise we've created a simple way of bypassing some constitutional liberties.

That still however doesn't answer the question as to where we draw the line for freedom of expression. Nazis took over once in the public sphere and they can do it again. I will argue against moral relativism here and say yes it's ok to suppress nazis so long as we don't turn that around and become needlessly oppressive in other ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Not even mentioning they are playing a dangerous censorhip game, it's very weird that they pick the WHO over the CDC after all the WHO controversies. (Taiwan, slow COVID-19 response, alignment with China lines, head of WHO was part of the corrupt Ethiopian government, $200M in business class travel, and probably more scandals.)

CDC has also a way bigger budget than the WHO. $11.1B vs $4.2B.

Ref:

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization)

\- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention)

<comment><USER19> The majority of WHO controversies are made up, the WHO are not a political entity so they do not want to comment at all on political issues; and whatever you want to say about Taiwan it is a very heated political situation.

That's also the evidence of "alignment with china": because we in the west see a failure to recognise taiwan as siding with china. Which is odd because the USA doesn't officially recognise Taiwan itself. In fact the WHO did almost exactly what a US diplomat would have done- albeit a bit delayed.

Corruption not withstanding (yeah, it's unfortunate but that thing is going to happen, what matters is the response not that it happened) it's better to have a bipartisan global concerted effort to manage these things than the centralised health organisation of a single country. Even though that country is the homestead of the service in question.

<comment><USER20> > The majority of WHO controversies are made up, the WHO are not a political > entity so they do not want to comment at all on political issues; and > whatever you want to say about Taiwan it is a very heated political > situation.

They make overt political statements all the time. For one: calling Taiwan racist when it took issue with the WHO's inaction after their attempts to disseminate health information.

Then Tedros calling travel bans "stigmatic." Precisely when travel bans were needed at the onset of the spreading.

If WHO is supposed to be apolitical, it shouldn't be parroting Chinese talking points.

<comment><USER19> Please don't twist the situation.

The Head of the WHO was attacked by racist trolls who were outwardly Taiwanese; for excluding Taiwan from membership (like _all_ U.N. projects do), And he commented about the abuse.

[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/taiwan-who- tedro...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/taiwan-who-tedros- racism-china.html)

<comment><USER21> He "commented about the abuse" in order to deflect from a question about why the WHO didn't take Taiwan's warnings seriously.

<comment><USER19> I think you're missing the point.

Taiwan does not exist as an entity to the WHO because it is not recognised by the United Nations.

As much as Taiwan has valuable lessons it's basically akin to asking why the WHO isn't listening to the municipality of sealand.

The journalist asking that question in the first place knew that Taiwan is a political hotbed and was looking for a story, they got one and the WHO is under the bus- at a time when we need a united front in healthcare globally.

And the racist abuse was entirely real: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/taiwan- rej...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/taiwan-rejects-who- chiefs-claim-of-campaign-against-him-amid-coronavirus- pandemic/2020/04/09/ab1c8e8a-7a0e-11ea-a311-adb1344719a9_story.html)

<comment><USER21> If you think that's an acceptable answer, then Tedros could have given it as an answer instead of an irrelevant diatribe about mean people online.

Public health is, like aviation for example, one of those things where recognition of "legitimate" governments has to take a back seat to de facto reality. If the WHO is unable to deal with Taiwan, then we need a different organization that can.

<comment><USER19> Reality doesn't work this way.

The only way to have real collaboration on a global level is to take no sides of any kind and only agree with absolute consensus. Anything else is picking a side and alienates part of the world.

I'm sorry that the WHO isn't playing into the politics you or I like, in this case it almost certainly would have saved lives, but that's kind of the point. As soon as they "wake up to the reality" of something such as, idk, Crimea being Russian territory? then suddenly they're alienating Ukraine and its allies.

It's stupid, and fickle, but the only winning move is not to play.

<comment><USER21> They clearly took a side, I don't know how you can look at it any other way. In your counter factual with Russia, of course they should recognize the de facto situation and send aid if something terrible happens there, regardless of how mad that makes Ukraine.

It doesn't really matter whether my politics were assuaged, though, because they pissed off the majority of their funding and had it cut off. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you are outraged about this, please consider using or contributing to LBRY.

All of our tech is open, we've been growing incredibly quickly, and we have a great roster of creators who are fed up with YouTube.

LBRY for n00bs: [https://lbry.tv](https://lbry.tv)

Private, P2P desktop app: [https://lbry.com/get](https://lbry.com/get)

Recent progress blog post: [https://open.lbry.com/@lbry:3f/progress-at- lbry:0](https://open.lbry.com/@lbry:3f/progress-at-lbry:0)

Contributor's guide and source code: [https://lbry.tech/contribute](https://lbry.tech/contribute)

One-click YouTube sync: [https://lbry.com/youtube](https://lbry.com/youtube)

IEEE accepted whitepaper: [https://open.lbry.com/@kauffj:f/lbrywhitepaper](https://open.lbry.com/@kauffj:f/lbrywhitepaper)

<comment><USER23> By advertising this here, is your growth plan based on gaining customers who are banned, or disgruntled at the system of moderation on YouTube?

If that is the case, you may end up with a less savoury community than you hope for. Voat is an example here.

<comment><USER24> What a brillaint point that always gets overlooked. People only start taking decentralization when extremes happen and extremist are first ones on board. You end up with majority extremist community when 90% of user pool is centrist - good luck tapping into that now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is a mistake.

It implies that we should all agree that WHO:

1) Is not corrupt 2) At all times represents the best available expert opinion and advice

But all institutions can become corrupted and the second point is highly implausible.

WHO ignored Taiwan's early warning and maintained for a dangerously long time that human to human transmission was not possible.

There is a reason why the US cut funding to WHO.

This new direction of social platforms to silence people is a fundamentally anti-intellectual and authoritarian idea. We are heading for something awful if we all keep playing along.

<comment><USER26> the WHO is... corrupt? this is the first I have heard of such an idea. What would someone gain by I guess bribing the WHO?

<comment><USER27> Bribing? How about Beijing hand placing the director and then letting the corruption trickle down. There are lots of things you can gain from owning a global organization like the WHO. For one, they will tote your colonies like N.Korea as being "the envy of the developing world." They can be used as a tool to influence your enemies. The only limits are your creativity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Just look back through the years where the WHO has posted information and data that has been false. There were scientists and doctors who disagreed, those doctors were correct. So YouTube wouldn't allow correct information in this scenario for Covid 19?

<comment><USER29> In Canada for months we followed WHO's directions to a tee and ended up rapid growth of infections until we did a 180 and implemented nearly every measure that the WHO disagreed with.

Taiwan is one of the few countries to have very few cases, and they essentially did a lot of measures the WHO did not recommend initially.

<comment><USER30> This is incredibly vague.

WHAT measures did the WHO "disagree" with that saved Canada? I'd love to see this post cited up to include what measuring you're referring to in both parts (agree w/WHO and disagree) and where the WHO disagreed with Canada's measures.

<comment><USER31> The WHO advised against the public wearing masks and advised against travel restrictions.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/all-uk- hospita...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/all-uk-hospital- staff-and-patients-should-wear-masks-says-doctors-group)

[https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who- re...](https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who- recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak)

As I understand it - many Canadians of Asian decent in Vancouver BC wore masks early on.

[https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states- canada/article...](https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states- canada/article/3078875/coronavirus-british-columbia-winning-covid-19-fight)

EDIT: As of 3/30 WHO still doesn't recommend wearing masks (except for the obviously sick) - contrary to Vancouver BC who now require at least a covering or mask.

[https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who- masks-r...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks- recommendation-trnd/index.html)

<comment><USER30> > The WHO advised against the public wearing masks

Nope. Your article is actually about the UK's government's advice and lumps in the WHO. Here's a WHO publication from 30th of January 2020 [0] that advises all sick with "flu-like symptoms" be provided a mask (as well as healthcare workers).

The WHO, like every national government, have recommended prioritizing masks to the sick and healthcare workers since the start of the year. Canada didn't contradict that and still doesn't as far as I've read.

Giving masks to asymptomatic members of the public only makes sense when there's a large enough supply to do so without starving essential services or known carriers.

> and advised against travel restrictions.

Your own link contradicts this claim.

> However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of > people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few > international connections and limited response capacities.

> Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may > only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow > countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement > effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a > careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be > short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.

They then go on to essentially say that it won't work (and spoilers: It didn't work, they were 100% correct).

It also fails to show how Canada acted against the WHO advice? That was the core claim above, and your response doesn't even attempt to show that.

In fact Canada has been in lock-step with the WHO since the beginning and still is. Even according to your links.

[0] [https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk- co...](https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk- communication-for-healthcare-facilities.pdf?sfvrsn=2a5b0e0b_2)

<comment><USER32> The WHO still right now does not support wearing masks if you're not sick. The fact that we know that people can be sick and spread the virus and still not show any symptoms suggests that every country in Asia supporting wearing the masks early on is right and the WHO is wrong.

<comment><USER33> As ever, the face mask issue is more complicated than it appears at first glance.

Yes, if everyone in the world had a sufficient supply of face masks and wore them correctly all of the time then the R0 would drop significantly.

The two keys parts of that statement are _sufficient supply_ and _wear them correctly_.

There is not a sufficient supply of face masks for everyone on the planet. Anyone purchasing face masks for themselves (without showing symptoms) are taking stock away from, for example, healthcare workers. Who definitely need the supplies.

I've seen people who have bought facemasks touching their face and fiddling with the masks. They don't know how to wear them correctly, making their purchase a complete waste. They've wasted stock that could have been made available to healthcare workers.

If the world was perfect and every human was perfect then yes I would agree with your statement.

But it isn't and they aren't.

WHO seems to understand this and so it seems to be a factor in their advice.

I believe they may have even made a statement to this effect at some point?

<comment><USER34> It's not complicated at all, except for those who wish to cover up responsibility for how unprepared we have been.

>There is not a sufficient supply of face masks for everyone on the planet. Anyone purchasing face masks for themselves (without showing symptoms) are taking stock away from, for example, healthcare workers. Who definitely need the supplies.

Anyone that has access to cloth can make a rudimentary mask that is better than nothing.

>If the world was perfect and every human was perfect then yes I would agree with your statement.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Fake news can't be solved with bans, only through education. Education is a long term investment though and everyone wants immediate fixes. Expect more of this nonsensical short term thinking.

<comment><USER36> I'm not sure education is the issue.

I think the issue is people latch on to these things due to feeling or being powerless. They reach for solutions rather than being stuck in an endless waiting or trusting period, hoping for remote experts to do something. Education can help that but not always, and especially if the experts are adversarial to groups of people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The level of censorship that Facebook, Medium and YouTube are applying right now should be terrifying to anyone who cares about free speech.

Dissenting opinions are important for a free society. If facts and truth are on your side, what are you so afraid of?

Aaron Ginn's "evidence over hysteria" post (1) that was quickly censored by Medium is a good example for discussion. Aaron may have been wrong, but he made his case civilly and argued in good faith. Do we really want to elect these platforms as the thought police who decide which ideas or information we're allowed to consume? Especially right now, when the "official sources" like the Whitehouse and WHO are lying to us!

In the words of Naval Ravikant, "Give your worst political enemy the power to decide what is "hate speech" and what is "disinformation" and then you'll realize that free speech isn't something we should ever compromise on".

(1) [https://www.zerohedge.com/health/covid-19-evidence-over- hyst...](https://www.zerohedge.com/health/covid-19-evidence-over-hysteria)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is this the beginning of the end for YouTube? As someone who deeply hates how much fake news have been spreading in the past few years, I still find this very worrying, especially since the WHO has been very inconsistent with their messaging during this pandemic [1] and sometimes plain wrong [2].

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who- chie...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chief-says- widespread-travel-bans-not-needed-to-beat-china-virus-idUSKBN1ZX1H3)

[2] [https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152](https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152)

<comment><USER38> To be fair no major health organization has been completely consistent or completely "correct" regarding the pandemic, in fact its virtually impossible to do so as the situation develops and our understanding of the situation changes. The recent change to CDC guidelines for the general public to wear face masks is an example of reaction to new research.

That's not to say there isn't outright incorrect fake news, but in hindsight some guidelines will always seem more correct than others.

<comment><USER39> _To be fair no major health organization has been completely consistent or completely "correct" regarding the pandemic_

Exactly, which is why declaring that any one entity is the unquestionable source of truth not only shreds the concept of freedom of expression but may be actively harmful.

 _The recent change to CDC guidelines for the general public to wear face masks is an example of reaction to new research._

Was it actually in response to new research? (Not a rhetorical question). My impression is that they had to change their policy because their "noble lie" of "masks don't work, also we have to save them for healthcare workers" was increasingly recognized as utter nonsense. Which might not have happened if anyone who advocated masks had been summarily deplatformed.

<comment><USER38> Responding to new research is one of reasons they list on their site for the face new mask guidelines. It was shown that asymptomatic people can also transmit the virus, so the CDC is recommending everyone, not just high risk people, wear face masks to limit the spread in areas where social distancing is difficult.

"In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission." [1]

[1] [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting- si...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth- face-cover.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> That's really bad.

In my country (Germany), the government changed position so many times. What was yesterday "a hoax", became official government position few days later, etc

Treating WHO positions as "the only truth that may be publicly discussed", seems rather authoritarian and dangerous.

</comment><comment><USER41> What's most interesting about watching platforms target "mis"-information is the question/problem of whether and how they define it.

For example, Facebook refers to "fake news" as "false news"; if you search their domains for "false news is", you'll get around 6,500 results, none of which include an actual definition of what "false news" is. Setting aside the obviously problematic policy issues associated with this, it suggests that FB either doesn't have a definition or has one but has chosen not to publish it.

Loosely, I think you could categorize information on a grid (allowing for overlap), where the columns are "information", "wrong information", and "non- information"; the rows are "deliberate" and "inadvertent".

"Dis"-information would fall under "deliberate" and "wrong", whereas "mis"-information is "wrong" but may be "inadvertent" (someone posting something they don't know is incorrect, for example). OTOH you can have "deliberate" "non-information" in the form of "obscurantism" or "inadvertent" "non-information" in the form of "bullshit". And of course you can have all kinds of stuff in between.

Then again, most platform policies ultimately boil down to whether or not a statement is likely to cause to some kind of real harm. If that's the case then I'm not sure why you need to formally identify it as "misinformation" at all. If at the end of the gay you're going to say "We removed this because it violated our policy against posts that may cause actual harm to others", then calling it out as belonging to any particular category of impermissible content is just a perfunctory nod to transparency in your policy enforcement.

If anyone here has a policy issue they're seeking advice on please feel free to reach out. I love this stuff.

</comment><comment><USER42> I do find the "censorship by private companies" discussions particularly interesting as a number of comments seem to overlook that we're conversing this very topic on a heavily censored and moderated forum that tailors its permitted content either directly (moderators) or indirectly (users downvoting). Its content, moderation, and selection are the primary reasons we enjoy visiting this site and having discussions. Articles get flagged on a weekly basis, and most (all?) probably for good reason. Is that unwarranted censorship, or a core component of what makes this website "successful"?

<comment><USER43> Weekly? Try daily or hourly. I routinely read HN starting at [https://news.ycombinator.com/active](https://news.ycombinator.com/active) which shows flagged stories and I have showdead switched on, exactly because I don't trust the moderation here. All kinds of interesting and useful stories get flagged for no obvious reason at all. HN's own guidelines are very vague and contradictory.

I'm sure the mods just erase stuff outright too, but unfortunately there aren't really many better forums out there - subreddits are hardly a paragon of transparent and fair moderation. Slashdot got it the most right even so many years ago but the site has been abandoned and was decaying for a long time. It's just unpleasant to use these days (not because of the comments).

<comment><USER44> I don't really agree with your position here, despite having (what I think to to be) reasonable comments flagged or warned a bit. They do ok to keep a balance in this place.

That said, publicmodlogs are a boon for subreddit transparency and is certainly a move in the right direction to counter conscious and unconscious biasing in online forums. It's a bright spot in the murky world of volunteer reddit moderation

[https://www.reddit.com/r/publicmodlogs/](https://www.reddit.com/r/publicmodlogs/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is terrible. I wrote this week how centralized, point-and-click mass censorship has a non-obvious failure mode in emergencies/pandemics/wars that poses an existential threat to a free and self-determined society:

[https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy- bias/](https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/)

(Note well that this exceptionally dangerous failure mode is based simply on the existence of the technological capability of mass instant censorship, not the merit of the specific editorial decisions of what content is censored or not.)

Furthermore, in any crisis or rapidly evolving situation, any one organization deeming themselves the sole arbiter of truth is extremely dangerous. What is true one day we learn with more information is false the next. You may recall this is the same WHO who said that healthy people get no benefit from wearing masks, and that also parroted China's line about no human-to-human transmission. _They are not immune to criticism, nor should they be._

Do you trust Google and the WHO to be superhuman, prescient and perfectly informed at all times? I don't. (I also don't think it's any adult's business telling another adult what they should or should not be able to read or watch.)

YouTube's other censorship efforts have been actively impeding the research and prosecution of war crimes in the Syrian war as they are deleting _hundreds of thousands_ of videos, amounting to destruction of evidence.

Either YouTube needs to stop being the default video upload target for most of internet-connected Earth, or they need to stop doing this shit. The current situation is far too dangerous.

Instagram/Facebook are even worse. Same problem.

These point-and-click mass censorship platforms are ticking time bombs for society-wide abuse even if they _don't_ censor anything most days of most decades.

<comment><USER46> > parroted China's line about no human-to-human transmission

This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven't yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they'd managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can't be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did.

<comment><USER45> Screenshot: [https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1245689629178650624](https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1245689629178650624)

The ambiguity between their various statements at that time, taken together, just furthers my point that those statements should not be immune from dialog, criticism, verification/falsification, and discussion of those results.

YouTube has banned that.

<comment><USER46> "No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare.

<comment><USER45> You can constrain your statements to only objectively true things and still be confusing and ambiguous. This is a perfect example of that. It warrants criticism.

<comment><USER47> I've probably seen this tweet 50 times now in the last week. Before that, not even once. It's easy to criticize now with 3 months of additional information and to cherry pick an instance of a few hundred characters out of all the statements the WHO has made. 99% of the criticism of this tweet that I've seen so far comes nowhere near the nuanced criticism you make here. In aggregate, the level of criticism this tweet has received has not been warranted.

<comment><USER32> I've watched criticism of that tweet since the day they posted it. Luckily Taiwan and HK ignored the WHO. And alot of people in Singapore also ignored and have been wearing masks since Jan.

<comment><USER47> I was referring to the tweet on human-to-human transmission.

Masks are a different story and I'm aware of the early criticism there. Although I think they provided a fairly reasonable argument for their position, especially given suppy constraints.

<comment><USER32> I'm referring to the tweet about human-to-human transmission. When that tweet happened it got alot of criticism. And despite the tweet we continued to wear a mask knowing the benefits of doing so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "You"Tube. What a joke.

I've been active on YouTube since 2006. Back then I would watch and make comedy videos, but around 2008 I found a love for the political / philosophical side of YouTube. Back then there used some brilliant debates among communities, and I credit early YouTube for being a huge influence on my political views today. It helped me develop an open mind and critical thinking skills that I find immensely valuable in my life today.

But today there isn't really any interesting debates there anymore. I've noticed the algorithms push certain views on me and the creators I like who speak against the YouTube's political views get their lives made very difficult through demonetisations, channel strikes, algorithm discrimination or straight up banning.

</comment><comment><USER49> Even without endorsing any conspiracy theories, I don't think the WHO has proven themselves to a faultless institution.

</comment><comment><USER50> Dr. John Campbell, who posts daily on Coronavirus news internationally, and who also dives deep into the physiologic processes around viruses, illnesses, and immune function, is often at odds with the WHO. And he generally has a compelling argument for why, often quoting scientific literature.

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF9IOB2TExg3QIBupFtBDxg](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF9IOB2TExg3QIBupFtBDxg)

(I highly recommend watching his videos!)

If YouTube shuts John Campbell down, they will be doing a major disservice to this global fight against a virus.

</comment><comment><USER51> Things like this are tricky to me. YouTube is a private platform, so they can make their own decisions, but any sort of censorship is scary to me.

I honestly don't know where to stand when it comes to issues related to censoring content like this. On one hand, you can limit information we know is false, but restricting spread of information is censoring people, something that is pretty widely regarded as oppressive.

I guess all I can do is wait and see what comes of this.

<comment><USER52> Yes, they are private and can do what they want... and we can judge them harshly for it.

What's legal and what's moral aren't the same thing.

<comment><USER53> Fully agreed.

I think that YouTube is in absolute legal right to ban whatever content they want, and I wouldn't want that legal right taken away from them (or any other content platform).

However, I absolutely disagree with this specific ban on their end, and it deserves to be criticized. But, again, they shouldn't be legally restricted from making this decision, no matter how poor I believe the decision is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Nuance is required. There's two sub-category ends of contradictory content spectrum: baseless/wrong/speculative (worthless) and scientific inquiry (worthwhile). Hopefully algorithms won't automatically ban people like Dr. Kyle-Sidell for questioning COVID treatment protocols.

OTOH, allowing snake oil salesman junk content like from Alex Jones harms the public good.

<comment><USER55> The Streisand effect ensures the censorship you champion will be amplified and emboldened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Yeah, I'm not seeing the outrage.

1\. Youtube ad providers do not want their ads shown with bogus content.

2\. Youtube does not want to be subject to lawsuits from the transmission of dangerous bullshit.

3\. Pandemic situations are not the same as being a kook and watching garden variety kook material. Misinformation regarding this has already killed people. It will continue to kill people. Save your frustration for when a content platform censors everyday nonsense, and save me the slippery slope argument.

There are freaking dentists and physicians who, in a panic, tried to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for themselves and their families because they heard about ONE study by a serial nutball out of France, which was then repeated by the freaking President of the United States.

</comment><comment><USER57> The WHO previously stated on Twitter in January that there is no evidence of human to human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. If this rule on YouTube were in place then and someone was sharing evidence of human to human transmission that technically would have been banned.

<comment><USER46> This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying there probably is person- to-person transmission, and a bunch saying that specific studies haven't yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they'd managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can't be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did.

<comment><USER57> What is false about this tweet? [1]

[1] [https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152](https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152)

<comment><USER58> What's false here — a logical fallacy — is to attribute that claim to the WHO, and not to the 'preliminary reports' from 'Chinese authorities'.

If a newspaper quotes/summarises the words of an MP/celeb, are those the newspaper's views?

This tweet clearly states it is the view of a third-party, and that it is based upon preliminary reports, and it is the third-party's findings.

<comment><USER57> I would hope that the WHO only tweets statements that they find credible. Newspapers repeating what a celebrity says feels different

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I was defending Facebook for removing anti-quarantine events. There's a difference between mere opinions versus actions that directly risk the public health of non-participants and I think Facebook is nailing it.

However, Google has gotten it wrong:

1\. As others have said, WHO has not earned this trust to date and is also a political organization, not one that is independent.

2\. There were other options available, such as demonetization. Stopping people from profiting over putting out information that could hurt people seems more legit to me. They also could have used disclaimers, like the article mentions Facebook is doing for similar content.

3\. Another option available to them? Limit the promotion of these videos through recommendations. I get why Google wouldn't want to actively be promoting videos that give terrible misinformation, so they can decide not to promote while still allowing the video to be posted. This is their normal policy for content that is considered "harmful misinformation." (Which was strengthened last year.) Why not use existing policy?

Edit: One example Google could give of precedent is that they removed videos of people encouraging and participating in the Tide Pod Challenge: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16902990/youtube-tide- pod...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16902990/youtube-tide-pod- challenge-video-take-down-community-guidelines-removal)

However, I'd actually be fine with them removing video of people drinking bleach to combat coronavirus. And maybe even just encouraging others to do so. But taking vitamin C? (An actual example in the article.)

<comment><USER60> Vitamin C is like, _classic_ nonsense. People only take it seriously because it's been around forever, like homeopathy and acupuncture, not because there's any good evidence for it doing anything useful, beyond, you know, preventing scurvy.

<comment><USER59> I'm just saying it's not bleach.

But I didn't know that, interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> @dang The actual policy does not say that anything that goes against the WHO's recommendations will be removed. That looks like it came from a quote from Wojcicki as an example of something that might be risky. The title is misleading. [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en)

The article itself references this interview, which does not announce any policy changes: [https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/04/19/inside- yo...](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/04/19/inside-youtubes- numerous-policy-changes-during-the-pandemic.cnn/video/playlists/business- reliable-sources/)

</comment><comment><USER62> We can all debate who is right or wrong as much as we like, but you can be certain of one thing - right and wrong are not what drives the decisions of large companies like Google. What matters most to them is potential profit vs risk. Allowing their platform to be used for dissemination of potentially harmful advice puts them squarely at risk for lawsuits and bad press, both of which have very highly potential costs. At the same time, it presents relatively little potential profit. If someone is harmed following the advice they found on their platform, YouTube was just following WHO advice. The finger is pointed and the risk transferred elsewhere. From a business perspective, it becomes a very easy decision for them.

</comment><comment><USER63> I oppose Youtube's ability to single-handedly block content, for the same reason that I oppose the War On Drugs: it can't be won by fighting on the supply side. The war on misinformation has many parallels in this respect, not least because someone will always be ready and waiting to supply it, as long as the demand is there.

In this case, fighting the demand means teaching people basic critical thinking skills, how to spot logical fallacies, and methods of counter-acting propaganda and other forms of mass manipulation. Critical thinking is given short shrift, at least in American classrooms, and arming students with this kind of information would help them make more well-informed civic choices.

</comment><comment><USER64> Are you allowed say that Robert Mugabe was not a good choice as goodwill ambassador ?

</comment><comment><USER65> People aren't going to hurt themselves wearing face masks.

People could hurt themselves taking random drugs (or taking excessive amounts of over-the-counter drugs).

YouTube should focus on a "harm reduction to users" strategy.

</comment><comment><USER66> As much as I, as a general principle, loathe the tech giants dictating what is and isn't true for the world, in this case I feel some sympathy for companies temporarily banning potentially dangerous advice from their platforms.

Yes, it isn't absolutely clear what is "good advice". Yes, it might misfire and prevent useful content from being disseminated. Yes, the WHO is far from perfect. And yet, if I were the owner of YouTube, I would _have_ to reduce the liability of having physical harm, or even human deaths, being attributed to content served by my product — regardless of how tenuous the connection between content and action would be, and how many disclaimers and waivers surround such content.

Collectively, it's a disgrace if all digital media adopt this strategy, because we would be closing the most effective channels by which independent researchers, whistle-blowers, cutting-edge laboratories, etc can communicate with the masses. At the individual company level, limiting potential damage is the rational thing to do. There is no easy answer, I suspect.

</comment><comment><USER67> Fuck YouTube. At first they liberated creators and gave everyone the same upload button.

Now they're a bunch of fascists pandering to a niche demographic. Being PC is fine in some cases but I firmly believe in freedom of expression / free speech especially when it's controversial. Let's build hours ok folks critical thinking capability.

YouTube is becoming the very thing they tried not to be.

What do I think about wackos on youtube saying covid is the rapture? I think they're fucking bananas. But I still support their right to say what they want.

</comment><comment><USER68> Remember that on January 14 WHO tweeted that "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to- human transmission". So if you knew it's a lie - which by then many in China probably did - you could not publish it on Youtube based on current policy. It wasn't in effect then, but I wonder which lies such policy would support now?

</comment><comment><USER69> This is the Google/Alphabet that is infamous for no human customer support at all. If you ever mention coronavirus or related terms, expect the automatic ban with no way to argue for it.

I'm beginning to think that the Harry Potter was actually a dystopian novel. You must refer it like You-Know-The-Pathogen or The Pathogen That Must Not Be Named.

</comment><comment><USER70> Pick any politician and you will likely find some egregiously false statements about Covid-19...but I have to say the WHO, maybe acting on the best info at the time or acting as puppet for China, had put out some seriously dangerous false statements, including:

On January 14, the WHO stated that there was "no clear evidence of human-to- human transmission of the novel coronavirus."

<comment><USER46> This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying there probably is person- to-person transmission, and a bunch saying that specific studies haven't yet found _hard evidence_ for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they'd managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can't be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did.

<comment><USER70> >This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January.

You say it is "completely false" that people only believe is true by repetition, well WHO has a twitter account and their whole tweet is:

Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China

[https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152](https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152)

An wouldn't you know the WHOs completely false tweet was repeated 20k times.

<comment><USER46> "No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They _never ever_ said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare.

<comment><USER70> >"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement.

Something tells me you haven't seen this alleged "preliminary investigation" report, but assuming you had, how do you know China didn't withhold information?

The WHO tweet is dated 14 January 2020, but the 1st case of Covid was identified in December 2019.

Chinese police forced Dr. Li to remove his comments about Covid19 from the internet on 3 January 2020. Hell Dr. Li returned to work and contracted the Virus himself on 8 January 2020 before the WHO tweet...so how did he get it if not person to person transmission?

So China had the information and conducted a cover up a full 2 weeks before the WHO tweet.

Can you explain why Dr. Li was forced by police to remove his social media posts and sign a confession? Can you explain whether Chinese authorities investigating how the virus was transmitted to Dr. Li before informing the WHO there was no clear evidence of person to person transmission?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang)

<comment><USER46> I mean, if you actually dig a bit deeper into the story there, Li Wenliang had no expertise in the field, was going off very little information, and was sending out mass messages saying that SARS had returned (which was absolutely not true; SARS is far worse, with 25x the mortality rate of COVID-19), which would have incited completely panic.

Yes, in hindsight they should have listened to him, and back in January I was pissed off about this because it set China's response back by about a week, but these days a week of wasted time sounds like an excellent performance compared to almost every other country.

It's not about the political system. Imagine an American eye doctor posting on Facebook that Ebola was going around in NYC. They would definitely face immediate professional consequences — probably more than Li Wenliang did. My impression is that the full extent of the consequences he experienced was a stern talking to by the police, which is what you get here when pulled over for speeding.

<comment><USER71> An ER Doctor reporting about the unusual number of cases is someone who doesn't have enough educational background?

If an ear doctor was finding a high number of ebola patients when treating ear conditions you would discount that information because it didn't come from someone study ebola?

The frontline doctors are the ones who will see the cases explode first.

Arresting him and saying it's nothing, he just had a stern talking to. Just like a parent educating child.

Was he putting other lives in jeopardy by sharing the truth or saving lives? Not really the same as speeding.

Let's be honest China didn't want to hurt it's imagine and thought they could cover this up. Big mistake, now they look dishonest and investment will be out not in China going forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I assume that includes banning videos that promote previous WHO advice.

</comment><comment><USER73> The actual title of the article is "Coronavirus: YouTube bans 'medically unsubstantiated' content." While the article does state that content that contradicts WHO advice would violate this policy, the implication behind the current title, that the policy is _exclusively_ focused on the WHO, is incorrect.

</comment><comment><USER74> I largely disagree with YouTube's stance here, it's stupid. They kinda forced themselves into a corner with this one, I don't realistically think they can enforce this. Yet this is just another step in them screwing over creators. I'm especially worried about retroactive enforcement. As they often do. For example: which WHO advice do you need to contradict? Would they take down a video from January that says there's no need to worry because there is no human to human contact - as the WHO said in January? YouTube generally speaking has done shady stuff like this and it never ended well. There has to be a better way to handle this but I generally think that Susan has been busy waging a PR battle with people who don't even matter for the future of her platform.

</comment><comment><USER75> How do we know what is best for us? What and who should we believe? It kinds of remind me how Copernicus was banned centuries ago despite now we know he was closer to truth than anyone else. If we live at his times we would say he is crazy and certainly his YouTube channel would have to be deleted but why? I guess if someone is right, he will prove it eventually. Even if it sounds crazy but the person is determined we should have right to know it and decide if we agree. Why someone esle should decide for us what we can know.

[http://origins.osu.edu/milestones/february-2016-400-years- ag...](http://origins.osu.edu/milestones/february-2016-400-years-ago-catholic- church-prohibited-copernicanism)

</comment><comment><USER76> Social network, should really be owned by USERS instead of founders/investors. It should be decentralized and it should be governed based on democratic Principles. I once thought that blockchain can do the job but it proved to be untrue.

<comment><USER77> I wholeheartedly agree.

Check out the IndieWeb when you have cycles for it. I think it lines up quite well with what you've expressed.

[https://indieweb.org/principles](https://indieweb.org/principles)

<comment><USER76> Thanks!

I was really inspired by John Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" so I wanted to build something that can reflect my understanding of his vision, an autonomous cyberspace. I've tried to build blockchain, DApp and App in the past two years, all failed because of technical challenges. I'm on the fourth try and we are now building a "Wechat + Twitter" website. It is now open sourced at: [https://github.com/Rackar/dao- quasar](https://github.com/Rackar/dao-quasar)

<comment><USER77> _I was really inspired by John Barlow 's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"_

Somehow despite my own digital-revolutionary tendencies (don't read too far into this, heh) I'd never come across this bit of writing before.

Thank you!

I think you'll really appreciate the IndieWeb's adoption of microformats to enable federation, a brilliant example of it in use to display a timeline- esque rendering of contributors can be found on their directory: [http://indieweb.xyz](http://indieweb.xyz).

Instead of posting directly to the directory, you enable your website with certain HTML tags and upon publishing a new page or blog entry, it federates out via webmention and anyone who subscribes to the directory gets your content.

In my opinion this is the social-media web we should have gotten.

Edit: Also, about your app...I love the UI. I can't read much of what's on the page, but I'll run your readme through a translator to learn more. Good luck!

<comment><USER76> Thanks! I'll read everything about IndieWeb carefully tomorrow.

Do yo write frontend codes? If so I invite you to join our project to build DAO. If you are interested, please drop me a line at nycould at gmail.

The full design is available here: [https://lanhuapp.com/url/96D7S-tiHfu](https://lanhuapp.com/url/96D7S-tiHfu).

Basically we we are separating users to smaller communities called "Groups" (similar to a Wechat group or Facebook group). Each group can have its own rules enforced by Ethereum smart contract. This way people can stay in a virtual space with whatever rules they designed themselves and mutually decided to bind of.

Then the leaders of each "group" act as board members of the whole company. They can decide everything about where how this website should be built.

Developers of this site, are merely hired by these group leaders and get paid by cryptocurrencies issued by these group leaders.

These group leaders, on the other hand, are elected by members of his group and can be voted out too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Yeah, so how would YouTube help when the WHO release things like: [https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152](https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152)

Buy all means add a disclaimer advert akin to the old DVD FBI or other pirate warnings you couldn't skip, but to dismiss debate for people who are able to make their own mind up is only going to curtail facts. That in itself curtails advice the WHO may in itself give out.

Will youtube be expanding this to anything health wise?

Will there be an appeal process for false positives?

I feel there is more that can go wrong with this, than right.

</comment><comment><USER79> Great post, couple days of visibility and then back to business.

Google (YouTube), Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and others have recently increased censorship. And. Nothing. Will. Happen.

Unless we all leave their sites or something else

</comment><comment><USER80> YouTube also delists from search results content that details non-strawman evidence against the Apollo moon landings and videos of rockets appearing to hit the firmament, among many others. You can still find those videos with the same search terms by searching YouTube with Yandex or with a direct URL.

They also have unclear "hate speech" guidelines where they will remove videos and ban channels without specifying why.

The point is, this behavior is consistent with YouTube.

</comment><comment><USER81> To be honest 20 years ago when SARS is with us, it is fine to have a neutral scientific medical ... Now we cannot trust that. It has given advice which we know as Her not right. We just ignore it. And hence if anyone use WHO as standard, can they just shut off say Taiwan from YouTube etc. I am not talking about the politics. It is the bias built-in WHO. I am not starting China. Good day.

</comment><comment><USER82> Nothing of value was lost. It doesn't matter if you hold WHO in poor regard; pay for your own hosting if you want to publish content that YouTube doesn't want to host. I'll never understand the twisted mental gymnastics that lead people to believe they should be entitled to free HD video hosting from a private corporation.

</comment><comment><USER83> LBRY CEO statement regarding the topic: [https://open.lbry.com/@lbry:3f/whothinks:8?r=kK4881oviXzKfRU...](https://open.lbry.com/@lbry:3f/whothinks:8?r=kK4881oviXzKfRUsp8tda14TZzBE1S34)

LBRY is a well working and growing decentralized Youtube alternative

</comment><comment><USER84> This is the type of thing that makes people upset, then everyone forgets about it and continues using the service. Are there any specific individual actions that can be taken to push back on this? Besides "don't use youtube", because let's be honest that isn't realistic.

</comment><comment><USER85> This is great -- amplifying lies that kill people is ridiculous. And out of crisis, amplifying lies is unethical, period. It's not censorship if you can prove it's bullshit. People have a right to express themselves, but we also have a right to not accept lies as truth.

<comment><USER86> > It's not censorship if you can prove it's bullshit.

If you think that you can _prove_ any of the assertions at issue here one way or another, you are illustrating the problem.

For instance whether masks are worthwhile PPE is a highly complex issue and no definitive proof is available as to the correct policy across a wide variety of contexts. Yet YouTube is saying, if WHO claims it, nobody can refute that claim on their platform.

The same goes for the WHO's claims that eating seed oils and avoiding saturated fats is better for immunological health. This is a very controversial issue, and to simply rule out any contradiction on it can cause a lot of suffering if the WHO is wrong.

Whether this is censorship or not it makes YouTube a less valuable forum, and tends to protect official dicta from authorities as fallible as anyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> Should YouTube ban the interview with the President of the United States, where he suggests injecting desinfectant or hand sanitizer to treat COVID-19?

[https://youtu.be/QtgVxGkrX1Y](https://youtu.be/QtgVxGkrX1Y)

</comment><comment><USER88> I'll take the fake news today just to protect speech that may be wrong today but is right tomorrow.

It's amazing how quickly people who benefited from free platforms think that people who defect to the other side only do so because they are weak minded and read some bad news.

</comment><comment><USER89> This is pure evil. Once again the platforms have succeeded to turn an issue that concerns us all into a partisan american issue for all. It's sad to see so much of people working on software actively support this type of platfom power abuse for censorship.

<comment><USER90> It's for your own good. :) This is what my own government say every time they want to control the population. Luckily freedom of speech stands very firm in my own country of Norway, but it does not prevent the state from using the phrase.

As for the validity, when policies are in the open, which they mostly are over here, and it is clear what it is based upon, then far more people willingly accept them, because they can look into the facts themselves. They can even discuss conspiracy theories if they wish, but no one buys them, because good information is readily available. So when Norway claims that something is "for your own good," it is actually mostly true, despite the negative connotation the phrase has in most other countries.

The opposite tends to happen when information is subdued and censored, which is regretfully the route YouTube is now on. They're taking a path which is more similar to a state bureau than a private company. You're left to only speculate as to why they would do something like that, but it's likely that it is a combination of social justice leadership and governmental cooperation. As such, their difference from a state bureau is starting to blur.

The strategy of top-down censorship is sadly a strategy most employed in purely Socialist and Communist countries. But then that shouldn't be very surprising when you also see the position YouTube is in, which is so much of a market leader that they border on a monopoly.

While I can't speak for YouTube directly, since most video services are indeed free, one of the main business practises to retain such a position, is to bleed money to keep most of their services priced so low as to destroy all competition. YouTube is in a bit of a different position, howeve, because their service, particularly their suggeston service, is far better than most if not all competitors. But every time they employ censorship in any form, they bleed customers to alternative platforms, and the effect of their censorship is diminished, if not outright reversed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Does that include recognizing Taiwan?

</comment><comment><USER92> We're in a very interesting time, from an outsider perspective, the American ideal of free speech originated from a time when only the establishment (mainstream media, governments, large organizations, etc) have the ability to have their speech reach general public. Meaning people who say things that damage their reputation or relationship with the establishment will quickly disappear from public eye as they lose access to those platforms.

Today, thanks for all the social/media platforms, anyone can say whatever they want, gain a cult following and make a living. This is probably not something free speech idealist originally envisioned, and is seriously testing the viability of unrestricted free speech.

Will the newer media platforms follow the footsteps of media companies of yesterday and start de-platforming people they disagree with? Or will they continue to endorse free speech in its ideal, testing if unrestricted, technologically-enhanced free speech is a net positive to society?

</comment><comment><USER93> I see this as fine for the case where someone is saying "it's fine assemble in large groups" or other negative contradictions.

But it's not ok for cases where someone is advising being more restrictive or cautious or other positive contradictions.

</comment><comment><USER94> I believe that at this point most people already recognize that the information the receive -whether from mainstream sources or social networks- is doctored or massaged in some fashion, and almost always for political or commercial purposes.

</comment><comment><USER95> Does anyone have any links that outline the moderation protocols used to implement this type of thing?

I have read about some videos where they talk about using code words to circumvent being flagged. How much of this is human moderated?

</comment><comment><USER96> Are the same people who fear corporate censorship actually disjoint from the ones who trust in unfettered markets to choose winners? It seems to me they must be, but are there people in fact straddling this chasm?

</comment><comment><USER97> I guess that means they will have to ban all content mentioning Taiwan?

</comment><comment><USER40> Remember when the WHO didn't want to recognize it as a pandemic for weeks and weeks, and the entire world was wondering why?

Weird choice to select the WHO to be the only source of truth in this one.

</comment><comment><USER98> Who watches the watchers?

<comment><USER99> David Icke :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Should they ban religious and spiritual videos too? Who decides what is real? Are ideas the coming warground? These questions sound dramatic, but I wonder about this stuff.

</comment><comment><USER101> The real problem is not whatever youtube does, but the pretty much total lack of competition. Youtube is like all TV-channels at once, it really is a monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER102> I don't think YouTube believes WHO is accurate. This is just CYA. The media gave Facebook a hard time about fake news.

With this policy, they'll be on the clear pointing to WHO.

</comment><comment><USER103> The first time I got a color printer/scanner the first thing I did was slap a $5 bill on there to see if it would print a color copy.

What do you think happened?

I'll give you a hint: "EURion constellation".

Anyway, my point is, "It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye." When it comes to pandemics or currency control our systems have no problem toeing the hard line.

Has nothing to do with whether you like it or not, government's gonna govern. Make FAANG the new government and they're gonna govern.

<comment> seph-reed I'd never heard of "EURion constellation". The little video on this page has a nice explanation:

[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/counterfeit-money-eurion- cons...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/counterfeit-money-eurion- constellation_n_576a3aa8e4b0c0252e77b6c4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> An WHOs advice is exactly what? Take some untested meds, because why not?

Don't act in time, and if you must act, act in the most destructive way possible. Don't close borders before your country has infected. Close the whole bloody country down after the fact!

Im sick and tired of every tech company and goverment using this as an excuse to limit rights and censor left and right. I'd rather have to filter out a few videos about bleach curing SARS than living in this censorship nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER105> Bitchute.com might be a good alternative to the content creators who may have suffered from this ridiculous censorship.

</comment><comment><USER106> There are armed groups at state capitols spreading dangerous misinformation about COVID-19 that will almost certainly cause people to get sick and die. That misinformation effort is coordinated and well-funded.

Whatever hypothetical you want to argue about censorship, you need to grapple with the fact that we face a persistent and aggressive misinformation threat, and combating it is part of the public health response to COVID-19.

<comment><USER45> Censorship is the naive and ineffective non-solution to the problem of coordinated misinformation campaigns.

It's sort of like torture: even if it worked for the problem it is trying to solve, it would debase us as human beings to try to use it. To top that off, _it doesn't work_.

<comment><USER106> What do you suggest as an alternative? What would you have done in the situation where Facebook was used as a platform to incite pogroms against Muslims in Myanmar[1]? If we have a better solution in an emergency than censorship, I haven't heard it suggested.

1\. [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar- facebo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar- facebook.html)

<comment><USER45> Facebook is a communications tool. It does not incite violence by anyone or against anyone else any more or less than any comparable communications tool. That violent people use it is not an issue with Facebook or reason to censor it, any more than the fact that violent people using cellphones is a reason to tap every cellphone.

The alternative to censorship is... not censoring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> We really need decentralized, censorship resistant communication and data storage platforms.

</comment><comment><USER108> Even if I understand this decision, I'm against censoring and this is censoring.

</comment><comment><USER109> finally, so many family members are forwarding this. Though it would be better if if Facebook would do it as well.

Most of the conspiracy theories originate from there, if you have family members on FB think about cutting them out of it.

</comment><comment><USER110> Maybe this is what's needed to loosen the virtual monopoly YouTube has.

<comment><USER111> What other players are going to emerge in the market?

</comment></comment><comment><USER112> This is NOT GOOD... because the WHO has been known to be incorrect, the data they gather may be incorrect or incomplete, their assertions may be not be good enough, and we should hear alternative, anomalous, or contradictory information or opinions.

</comment><comment><USER113> I'm surprised at how upset people are about this. The amount of garbage on the internet now is immense. Invoking free speech, more and more of the internet has slowly become 4chan and I don't understand why more people aren't sick of it.

</comment><comment><USER114> This is one of the many times I wish YouTube had a worthy competitor

</comment><comment><USER115> According to those guidelines, YouTube would have to censor the US president's Thursday's White House coronavirus task force briefing.

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute! And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it'd be interesting to check that. So, that you're going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me." --Donald Trump

YouTube isn't able to perfectly apply this "complies with WHO" filter. Even if it would, some dangerous crackpot talk is actually newsworthy. Newsworthy as in we need to know that this harmful dribble came from the US president's mouth.

</comment><comment><USER116> So...

> _So people saying, 'Take vitamin C, take turmeric, we'll cure you,' those > are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy," she > told CNN._

...and:

> _" So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's > ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't > been checked but you're going to test it," Trump said. "And then I said, > supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either > through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to > test that too. Sounds interesting."_

But: [https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trump+injecting](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trump+injecting)

???

</comment><comment><USER117> Hope WHO doesn't come out against cute cat videos.

</comment><comment><USER118> My advice is to read Neil Postman's works, specifically 1) Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, 2) How to Watch TV News, and especially 3) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology if you think legacy/boomer media has any more credibility (especially today) than some random in their bedroom.

I'd also recommend reading Sharyl Attkisson's The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote and Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington

That random in their bedroom is the fourth estate now.

</comment><comment><USER119> This is going to inject a distortion on medical innovation in a time of crisis. Manipulative in the worst possible way. The moment they start censoring they become editors and not a platform.

</comment><comment><USER120> A lot of knee jerk responses in this thread.

Can anyone elaborate why exactly allowing demonstrably harmful and malicious lies during a major health emergency is a _good thing_ on its own merits?

<comment><USER121> Because the official narrative is not always the truth. And censorship breeds tyranny.

<comment><USER120> So again, this is an argument for allowing specific, identifiably harmful and wrong claims?

<comment><USER121> I understand the motivation. And it may even appear to be beneficial at first, but censorship is a slippery slope.

<comment><USER120> So in other words you don't have an argument for not blocking specific instances of harmful content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> Ahh, the same WHO that itself has spread misinformation on covid-19? (E.g., that there is no human-to-human transmission when they knew there was.)

<comment><USER46> This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven't yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they'd managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can't be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did.

<comment><USER122> > "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found > no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus > (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China," the organization had said.

That was on January 14, 2020. China almost certainly had evidence of human-to- human transmission by then.

EDIT: Taiwan alerted the WHO of human-to-human transmission on December 31, 2019. So please, stop spreading misinformation about the WHO. The WHO dropped the ball, and it's being badly. Until there is a change in management at the WHO, everything they say has to be examined extra carefully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER123> This is not a good decision. The WHO advice has been contradictory to the common sense of anyone with a basic scientific background.

</comment><comment><USER124> But the WHO is very careful not to offer any advice other than wash your hands. Who is going to contradict that?

</comment><comment><USER125> This is dangerous. It presumes that there is a single approach that is required for the whole world.

</comment><comment><USER126> This is despicable act.

</comment><comment><USER127> This is why you can't trust companies that want to play all international sides.

</comment><comment><USER128> Very dangerous stuff. The WHO has not exactly done a stellar job in this crisis.

</comment><comment><USER124> But the WHO is super careful to offer no advice, other than wash your hands.

</comment><comment><USER129> So... if someone mention corona in Taiwan, youtube will delete the video?

</comment><comment><USER130> this is a slippery slope. sure, it may seem reasonable now. But, once Youtube and facebook start deciding what you can and can't see, we're going down what could become a very dangerous path.

</comment><comment><USER131> WHO advices:

-masks dont work

-closing borders doesnt work

-should of closed borders, its too late now

<comment><USER46> > -should of closed borders, its too late now

The WHO is completely consistent: they have never advocated for closing borders. (After all, the W in WHO stands for World.) They _still_ don't want closed borders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> Like the USDA food pyramid - it's SCIENCE!

</comment><comment><USER133> Does that include Trump interviews where he suggests bleach injections?

</comment><comment><USER134> Is this ban also covering misinformation about vaccines ?

</comment><comment><USER135> Terrible

</comment><comment><USER136> They might as well just cut out the middle man and check all videos with the Chinese Communist Party.

</comment><comment><USER137> Remember when the WHO didn't recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation? Obviously the WHO isn't solely objective.

<comment><USER138> Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.

<comment><USER139> > Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly > small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as > international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the > 1970s.

That's misleading. The US _de facto_ recognizes Taiwan, and the only reason it doesn't recognize it _de jure_ is that the PRC would formally cut off relations if it did.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_in_Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_in_Taiwan)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_Economic_and_Cultural_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_Economic_and_Cultural_Representative_Office_in_the_United_States)

<comment><USER140> More importantly:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan)

Like, it's ok that we sell Taiwan fighter jets and tanks to defend themselves against China, as long as we say that Taiwan belongs to china.

I'll never understand politics.

<comment><USER141> My guess it's okey to do that because Chinese internal politics is based on PR which is populistic in nature. What is the proportion of people who would go out looking for lists of American exports into Taiwan vs the proportion of people who would hear Taiwan being pronounced by the president of the US?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER142> TheirTube

</comment><comment><USER143> > "So people saying, 'Take vitamin C, take turmeric, we'll cure you,' those > are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy

The WHO bannable hoax page:

> _Fact: There is no scientific evidence that lemon /turmeric prevents > COVID-19. In general, however, WHO recommends consuming adequate fruit and > vegetables as part of a healthy diet._

First results from site:who.int Google search:

> Effect of curcumin, the active constituent of turmeric, on penicillin- > induced epileptiform activity in rats (2012) _Curcumin is a major > constituent of turmeric and has many biological functions such as anticancer > and anti-inflammatory effects_

> Clinical trials on treatment using a combination of Traditional Chinese > medicine and Western medicine. Report of the WHO International Expert > Meeting to review and analyse clinical reports on combination treatment for > SARS (2003) _All participants were patients with clinically confirmed SARS > from Beijing Changxindian Hospital. Regimen: ... Radix Curcumae (15 g)... > Relative to the control group, the integrated treatment group showed a > significant decline in the general value of toxicosis symptoms, especially > in the second and third weeks of treatment (p < 0.001). The integrated > treatment group also showed radical improvement in alleviation of headaches, > arthralgia, pantalgia, cough, expectoration and haemoptysis, chest pain, > poor appetite, nausea, sweating and cardio palmus in comparison with the > group treated with Western medicine._

> Altered antibacterial activity of Curcumin in the presence of serum albumin, > plasma and whole blood (2017) _Curcumin has been studied for its anti- > inflammatory, antioxidative, anti-carcinogenic, anti-viral, anti-fungal and > anti-parasitic activities_

> CURCUMIN - HEALTH PROMISE FOR THE FUTURE (2015) _Curcumin > (diferuloylmethane) is a yellow pigment present in the turmeric (Curcuma > longa) which gives the yellow color to turmeric that has been associated > with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, antiviral, and > antibacterial activities. These effects are mediated through the regulation > of various transcription factors, growth factors, inflammatory cytokines, > protein kinases, and other enzymes. Most westerners know turmeric as gold > colored Indian spice. Turmeric and curcumin are not the same thing. The > antioxidant and anti-inflammatory property of curcumin is much more potent > in an extracted form. All of these studies suggest that curcumin has > enormous potential in the prevention and therapy of various diseases._

First results on Google Search:

> Specific Plant Terpenoids and Lignoids Possess Potent Antiviral Activities > against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (2007) _Curcumin, a > known phytocompound from Curcuma longa, has been reported to exhibit > antiinflammatory, antioxidant, anticarcinogenic, and anti-HIV activities. In > this study, mild activity against SARS-CoV replication and inhibition of 3CL > protease were observed._

> Anti-infective Properties of the Golden Spice Curcumin (2019) _Due to the > lack of preventive and therapeutic options for many viral infections, > numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the antiviral potential > of natural compounds. For curcumin, an antiviral activity was observed > against several different viruses including hepatitis viruses, influenza > viruses and emerging arboviruses like the Zika virus (ZIKV) or chikungunya > virus (CHIKV). Interestingly, it has also been reported that the molecule > inhibits human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2) > and human papillomavirus (HPV)._

> Prof. Manges (2020) _With the results of research that says curcumin can > modulate the expression of ACE2, some parties state that curcumin makes it > easy for COVID19 to enter the cell. Special research needs to be done to > answer whether the administration of curcumin in lung cells accelerates the > entry of germs and viruses, including the SARSCov-2 virus. What is certain > is that research on turmeric, ginger, curcuma proved to show the work of the > ingredients as an immune system booster._

> Curcumin Suppression of Cytokine Release and Cytokine Storm. A Potential > Therapy for Patients with Ebola and Other Severe Viral Infections (2015) > _Curcumin has been shown to inhibit the release of numerous cytokines. The > term 'cytokine storm' is most associated with the 1918 H1N1 influenza > pandemic ... also known to occur in advanced or terminal cases of severe > acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)_

> Catechin and Curcumin interact with corona (2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV2) viral S > protein and ACE2 of human cell membrane: insights from Computational study > and implication for intervention (2020) _Here, through computational > approaches we have reported two polyphenols, Catechin and Curcumin which > have dual binding affinity i.e both the molecule binds to viral S-protein > and as well as ACE2._

> Revealing the Potency of Citrus and Galangal Constituents to Halt SARS-CoV-2 > Infection (2020) _Moreover, all of the citrus flavonoids possess good > affinity to the respected receptors as well as curcumin, brazilin, and > galangin, indicating that those compounds perform inhibitory potential for > the viral infection and replication._

> Turmeric curcumin inhibits entry of all hepatitis C virus genotypes into > human liver cells (2013)

I won't do the same for vitamin C, but it's definitely possible to do just that. Look, even if its scientifically proven that turmeric does absolutely nothing, it will still work as a harmless placebo.

If you found out early and spread the word about: human-to-human transmission, qualifies as pandemic, passes brain-blood barrier, effectiveness of travel blockades, you'd be in direct opposition to the facts spread by the WHO.

WHO's masks strategy amounts to: don't wear a seatbelt, it gives a false sense of security, so you may start speeding, and you'll choke yourself if you apply seatbelt without proper fit training, so just stay 1 meter apart from the car in front of you, and avoid drunk drivers. There is no scientific evidence that seatbelts work for the general public, just tons of research on effective protection for professional drivers.

If you want to fact check, actually fact check, and send the reader to a reputable source that dispels it. Don't let swarm intelligence go to waste and turn YOUtube into WHOtube. At the most, ban or dispel "5G causes coronavirus", and "Bill Gates mark of the beast" state-actor disinformation.

</comment><comment><USER144> The WHO directly spreads misinformation so I don't know who to trust.

</comment><comment><USER145> Nice to see they have hired thousands of the top scientists to judge this. Unless this is just another rule that'll be at best enforced poorly.

</comment><comment><USER146> This isn't good. There's a reason why Trump left this corrupt organization.

</comment><comment><USER147> The comments in this thread are embarrassing. Youtube has every right to take responsibility for the content on their platform. Good for them for exercising it.

</comment><comment><USER148> YouTube is headquartered in the US, so it should follow CDC advice, rather than a global counterpart.

</comment><comment><USER149> I get my Coronavirus info from following people on twitter - who are mostly honest even if biased and understand that there is a lot of unknown and being honest about it the best place to start.

</comment><comment><USER150> "no you can't have it as a toggle button in the settings because we need to be able to control what you watch"

</comment><comment><USER151> Youtube also demonitized Chris Martenson's channel "Peak Prosperity" back in January when it was warning about the coronavirus crisis months before the WHO posthumous announcement of there being a pandemic.

<comment><USER151> Downvoted for stating a fact? What a joke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER152> Wearing a mask directly contradicted WHO advice and was correct. There's a lot of misinformation out there, this gives it more credibility.

</comment><comment><USER153> youtube is offering a convenient service subsidized by googles big pockets, they are not some arbiter of truth (but are entitled to their opinions). there are already plenty of podcasts in their archives that directly contradicted WHO guidelines at the time they were made. I don't even think they are a major source of hoaxes/conspiracies. this is actually a bad look for youtube.

</comment><comment><USER154> The same WHO that dragged its ass in declaring a pandemic, showered the CCP with non stop praise, and tells me I don't need to wear any protection?

Yeah, uh I'm not going to listen to anything that corrupt organization has to say.

I'm more dismayed that so many people are actually listening to them at all.

</comment><comment><USER155> "Mrs Wojcicki added YouTube had seen a 75% increase in demand for news from "authoritative" sources."

Who ??? who in its right mind is watching youtube for an "authoritative" source ??

<comment><USER156> Maybe I'm imagining it, but I've noticed that it's difficult to find user- generated current-events content on Youtube. The search results are dominated, artificially it feels, by clips from the major broadcasters and news agencies. User-created content is pushed down. I guess that's what preferring "authoritative" sources looks like, and I wonder if people are just "choosing" ("demanding") what the search results have been rigged to give them.

<comment><USER157> Or if those are initially organically selected and then pushed further by the algorithm. Likely a combination of real preference + manufactured

<comment><USER156> I should have added that it's definitely very different from how it was four years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER158> The tech companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al.) have taken for themselves the power of censorship, and they have lost the credibility to claim that they are neutral carriers.

I believe it is now justified to call for their algorithms to be made public, by legal means if necessary.

</comment><comment><USER159> The WHO sent out a Tweet back on January 14 saying:

"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus."

From my understanding that Tweet was deleted. With all the contradicting stories coming from the media, the WH, WHO, social media, I'm going to stick with facts and not twisted agenda pushing.

</comment><comment><USER160> YouTubers have known for a long time that certain topics and keywords will get your videos penalized. There is a popular legal channel that refers to the virus as the "My Sharona Cyrus" in order to avoid being flagged. YouTube has been engaged in social engineering for years, and yet there are still people out there who refuse to believe it, or believe it is OK because it agrees with their world view.

Then there is a whole other discussion about how capricious they are in what they decide to promote, demote, and leave alone. You can go binge watch ISIS recruitement videos as much as you want, but try to post a video criticizing Islam, gay/trans issues, etc. See what happens.

</comment><comment><USER161> Isn't this the same WHO that spread the PRC's obviously-false propaganda about SARS-CoV-2 in early January?

[https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152](https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152)

</comment><comment><USER162> Prior to March 3rd, the official position of the WHO was that "The flu is worse"

I don't expect the WHO to be infalliable, and I don't think this reflects malice or incompetence (they updated as information became available) but that's kind of my point. The WHO is not infalliable. The things they say are not gospel truth. Categorically banning discussion of anything that contradicts what they say is a horrendous measure that will suppress critical information, because _even the WHO_ contradicts the WHO. If the WHO is wrong again, but we are not allowed to discuss it, we will never find out. We will instead _enforce_ incorrect information, and people will die.

<comment><USER46> > Prior to March 3rd, the official position of the WHO was that "The flu is > worse"

This is a lie, and the product of many different organizations flat out making up claims about the WHO to deflect blame away from themselves.

The WHO has been telling nations to prepare since January. I mean, I'm an ordinary citizen and I got clued in to preparing in January from their statements.

<comment><USER163> You must have been watching different news sources than me. The comment you're replying to is what I saw as well.

<comment><USER164> Perhaps they were. "Watching" may be a warning sign here; TV news is generally... not good.

Here is the WHO warning the world to be ready at the end of January: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/29/whole-world- mu...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/29/whole-world-must-be- ready-to-deal-with-coronavirus-says-who)

Now, there've been lots of problems with the WHO's response, but to claim that they were downplaying it until March is outright false, and if the news you're watching is telling you that you should consider watching (or reading) something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER165> This is an absolute disgrace.

Ok YouTube - what is the plan if Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai becomes the next Director General of the WHO?

This creation of sacred cows from institutions is ludicrous. At one time YouTube associated itself with the SPLC to determine "hate groups", and Majid Nawaz from Quilliam successfully sued the SPLC into making a video apology and paying him millions - because they had previously placed him in their "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists".

The tech industry seems to have a fetish for authoritative sources in a world that is constantly proving that these gatekeepers of canonical knowledge are fallible, and often to the detriment of many.

Centralization of canonical information is not a solution to determining what's true and what isn't - it simply creates a structure where the truth can be determined by some organization, and all that's stopping it from being abused is blind faith that people in these organizations will do the right thing 100% of the time, infallibly.

Everything ought to be in a position where it can be criticized freely. When you walk down the street there can be crazy people who yell all sorts of prophecies. The scale at which people can do this on the internet is higher, but that does not automatically mean that they necessarily need to be addressed.

</comment><comment><USER166> "Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy."

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

"WHO continues to advise against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks."

[https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who- re...](https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who- recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak)

</comment><comment><USER167> The fact that they are backing WHO here as a means of curation and censorship instead of a less political org like the CDC, is pretty concerning. We already know WHO has stated objective falsehoods multiple times that impact the health of the world negatively.

<comment><USER168> Citations please?

<comment><USER167> please see the top comment in this thread, or the fourth top comment in this thread. I'm not sure why I was downvoted for making the same point as the top comments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER169> The concept of 'fake news' was invented to bring power back into the hands of large media companies and the corporations which control them by discrediting all alternative news sources.

I don't believe in fake news or conspiracy theories, but I do read conspiracy media and articles from 'fake news' outlets because it helps to get perspective.

There is definitely a grain of truth in many conspiracy theories and 'fake news' articles... And unfortunately this grain of truth is often never mentioned at all on mainstream media.

For example, some scientists found that covid-19 shared some non-trivial segment of RNA with the HIV virus. This is a fact but mainstream media does not mention it at all because they don't want to invite conspiracy theories that the virus could be man-made. Of course they could mention this and also add that this particular RNA sequence is also shared by many other viruses and not just HIV. But mainstream media will avoid the topic entirely because of political and financial pressures. They prefer to turn any scientist who mentions this fact into a social pariah rather than admit that there is an element of truth to it and that it could deserve further scrutiny.

Also, mainstream media would never dare to point out just how grotesquely massive the recent bailouts by the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States are. The amount of fiat dollars which will be injected into the economy is so alarming that even the billionaire fund manager Ray Dalio hinted that it would usher in a "new world order" (in an economic sense) but the gravity of the situation is not conveyed at all by the mainstream media.

Consuming conspiracy and 'fake news' media is mind-opening if you consume it in small quantities alongside mainstream media.

If you hate how divisive the world has become, then it's your moral duty to expose yourself to the other side's perspective. Mainstream media is becoming complacent and just like 'fake news' media, it's loaded with political and economic agendas. The only way to see past the agendas is to consume both.

<comment><USER46> > For example, some scientists found that covid-19 shared some non-trivial > segment of RNA with the HIV virus.

This is "zombie information" and a perfect example of the kind of nonsense that should be stopped. The single paper this came from was thoroughly debunked by a hundred real scientists the day it was posted. (It used statistical criteria so loose that it could have said _any_ virus was related to HIV.) The paper had never passed peer review, and was retracted by the authors from the preprint server it was posted on the next day.

You are part of the problem.

<comment><USER169> French Nobel prize winning scientist Luc Montagnier who discovered HIV also made similar claims. [https://www.gulftoday.ae/lifestyle/2020/04/19/french- nobel-p...](https://www.gulftoday.ae/lifestyle/2020/04/19/french-nobel-prize- winning-scientist-luc-montagnier-claims-covid-19-virus-originated-in-lab)

Sounds like you didn't hear about that. If the discoverer of HIV tells you that covid-19 contains segments of HIV RNA and says that he believes that it is man-made, it absolutely deserves more scrutiny even if it turns out not to be true. The media should embrace uncertainty instead of pretending to know all the answers. This is the problem with US media, there is no truth; only one extreme lie or its opposite which is also a lie. French and British media cover all possibilities and leave room doubt - This is healthy.

This close mindedness is exactly what I'm talking about and why we need some fake news in our lives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER170> I don't like this. All of the question of 'Why on earth choose WHO' aside...it is dangerous and depressing precident.

I live with a number of ladies who are very familiar with plant medicine. When this whole thing started we all started taking lots of dandelion root / hawthorne tincture. Dandelion is well known to both help your lymphatic system and support respiratory issues.

Hawthorne is an amazing heart / circulatory support. There is literary NO RISK for us in applying these home grown medicines.

We've all been infected since then, and each of us had pretty mild symptoms, that lasted for relatively short amounts of time. About two to three weeks. Many many people see 30-40 days of symptoms.

It cost us nothing. The medicine was prepared at home. Who knows what using these plant medicines across a population would result in statistically? Maybe it would reduce hospitalizations by 1%, or maybe it would reduce them by 75%, we don't know because there's no money to be made in it.

YouTube is a fantastic avenue for period to share their own experiences. Yes, you must take what people say with a grain of salt. You can't just believe anything you see. I feel sad that they are censoring people from sharing their own experiences in this time where are governments and medical systems are largely failing us.

<comment><USER171> > Who knows what using these plant medicines across a population would result > in statistically?

A lot of deaths:

[https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/07/02/dietary- supple...](https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/07/02/dietary-supplements- scary-substances-manufactured-under-scary-conditions)

> The inspection reports portray an industry struggling to meet basic > manufacturing standards, from verifying the identity of the ingredients that > go into its products to inspecting finished batches of supplements.

> Some firms don't even have recipes, known as master manufacturing records, > for their products.

> Others make their supplements in unsanitary factories. New Jersey-based > Quality Formulation Laboratories produced protein powder mixes and other > supplements in a facility infested with rodents, rodent feces and urine, > according to government records. FDA inspectors found a rodent apparently > cut in half next to a scoop, according to a 2008 inspection report.

> we don't know because there's no money to be made in it.

Lots of people are making lots of money selling this stuff. It's a huge industry.</comment></comment>