Youtube bans all anti-vaccine misinformation

[sureLoss]

I guess better late than never. Youtube will remove videos that contain false info about vaccines.

https://blog.youtube/news-and-events...ntent-youtube/

Throughout this work, we learned important lessons about how to design and enforce nuanced medical misinformation policies at scale. Working closely with health authorities, we looked to balance our commitment to an open platform with the need to remove egregious harmful content. We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we're now at a point where it's more important than ever to expand the work we started with COVID-19 to other vaccines.


Specifically, content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed. This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause autism, cancer or infertility, or that substances in vaccines can track those who receive them. Our policies not only cover specific routine immunizations like for measles or Hepatitis B, but also apply to general statements about vaccines.


As with our COVID guidelines, we consulted with local and international health organizations and experts in developing these policies. For example, our new guidance on vaccine side effects maps to public vaccine resources provided by health authorities and backed by medical consensus. These policy changes will go into effect today, and as with any significant update, it will take time for our systems to fully ramp up enforcement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/t...-vaxx-ban.html

In addition to banning Dr. Mercola and Mr. Kennedy, YouTube removed the accounts of other prominent anti-vaccination activists such as Erin Elizabeth and Sherri Tenpenny, a company spokeswoman said.

[RichieRich]

What if it’s not misinformation and reflects current situations and/or actual news from other countries?
For example LinkedIn removed some “misinformation” postings of a colleague that linked to mainstream news outlets in Japan and Norway (for example) that had been supported by and issued by national health agencies.

[Mathgod]

I applaud the move. Although some folks will allege censorship and be upset by this, at some point we have to recognize that letting this misinformation flow freely on social media has had catastrophic consequences. Free speech is wonderful and everything, but people should not have the right to spread blatant lies, pertaining to matters of public health & safety, out to thousands or in some cases millions of people at the click of a button.

[Ozy_Flame]

Once people realize that YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are simply conduits to communication rather than sources of information themselves, the better off we are. The quest for factual information should be the focus, not the platforms that host the noise. Users need to be able to sift through the volumes of democratized information, and the platforms can help position that easier by removing proven wrong info claiming to be facts.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I applaud the move. Although some folks will allege censorship and be upset by this, at some point we have to recognize that letting this misinformation flow freely on social media has had catastrophic consequences. Free speech is wonderful and everything, but people should not have the right to spread blatant lies, pertaining to matters of public health & safety, out to thousands or in some cases millions of people at the click of a button.

I think the "classical liberal" approach to free speech needs to be treated with the same skepticism as the second amendment's approach to gun control at this point. The people who came up with these concepts could not have fathomed the technological and social advancements that have dramatically changed the game around us.

EDIT: And I say that as someone who is generally in favour of gun ownership and free speech, but the notion that societies can't develop reasonable limits to each seems ridiculous to me.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

What if it’s not misinformation and reflects current situations and/or actual news from other countries?
For example LinkedIn removed some “misinformation” postings of a colleague that linked to mainstream news outlets in Japan and Norway (for example) that had been supported by and issued by national health agencies.

Like what?

[Table 5]

I know private companies don't fall under the free speech umbrella, but considering their scale and the impact on our lives, I'm really not a fan of any of these social platforms deciding what is right and what is wrong for us to consume. In our society, people should be free to consume whatever ideas they wish, even if they are wrong or not in their long-term interest. Do we no longer believe the old phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

I'm a skeptic at heart. I don't trust most of the idiots rambling on YouTube. But I also don't trust the low-level peons who will be in charge of fact-checking.

[zamler]

Private corporations should 100% decide what is true and what is not. You won't find one instance where something was censored and turned out to be accurate information.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I know private companies don't fall under the free speech umbrella, but considering their scale and the impact on our lives, I'm really not a fan of any of these social platforms deciding what is right and what is wrong for us to consume. In our society, people should be free to consume whatever ideas they wish, even if they are wrong or not in their long-term interest. Do we no longer believe the old phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

I'm a skeptic at heart. I don't trust most of the idiots rambling on YouTube. But I also don't trust the low-level peons who will be in charge of fact-checking.

I agree with this.

Obviously the misinformation is an issue, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that some 'fact checker' at YouTube is going to make the correct decision in terms of what should be censored.

The best way to combat bad information is with good information.

We are paying for 20+ years of allowing the anti vaxx movement to say & do whatever the hell they wanted without some serious education & awareness programs to combat all the stupidity they were spreading.

After ALL this time, public schools in Manitoba are scheduling vaccine awareness sessions with a health nurse to come out and talk to students & parents about what the vaccine is & why it is important.

A little late to the party, no?

[Northendzone]

part of me feels this is a slippery slope; however, they could have quietly done this and we would likely not know anything

[jammies]

Maybe CP can do the same now.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by zamler

Private corporations should 100% decide what is true and what is not. You won't find one instance where something was censored and turned out to be accurate information.

Private companies are allowed to decide what is and isn't allowed on their platforms.

That's the beauty of a free market.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by jammies

Maybe CP can do the same now.

Sir ... Sir.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

Maybe CP can do the same now.

And of course we should let you decide what is misinformation & what isn't.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by zamler

Private corporations should 100% decide what is true and what is not. You won't find one instance where something was censored and turned out to be accurate information.

I wonder what would happen if they took down a video that was true.

My God, imagine it. Information as we know it will cease to exist if it can't be disseminated through... *checks notes*... YouTube?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Private companies are allowed to decide what is and isn't allowed on their platforms.

That's the beauty of a free market.

It's hardly that simple. Google controls 95% of all internet searches that gives them enormous power to use and abuse. Google gets to be both a publisher and platform at the same time meaning they cannot be sued for whatever ends up on their platform, but then gets to censor at will and in general decide what you can and cannot see.

Combine that with Alphabet Inc.'s hooks into government and it's the perfect system for corruption. I don't believe for 1 second Google is censoring because they care about everyone so much and want to protect them. They are doing it solely for their self interest.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Azure

And of course we should let you decide what is misinformation & what isn't.

I've applied for the position. You're the first to get banned if I get it (and then Locke, for fun).

[zamler]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I wonder what would happen if they took down a video that was true.

My God, imagine it. Information as we know it will cease to exist if it can't be disseminated through... *checks notes*... YouTube?

Do you intentionally try to make the dumbest posts possible? Honest question.

[burn_this_city]

Facebook is the real issue in my opinion. I've been seeing a lot of anti vax, muh freedom stuff showing up on my newsfeed lately from those suggestions things. Youtube never really offers it up to me unless I search for it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by zamler

Do you intentionally try to make the dumbest posts possible? Honest question.

From the guy worried about how much truth he can get from YouTube.

Get lost, loser.