Big Tech Censorship

2u2me

A youtube video about a conversation between urgent Care doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi went viral on youtube and has been taken down after receiving more than 5 million views.

They argue the initial models about covid19 impact were woefully inaccurate and the predicted millions of death isn't materializing. This is data that corroborates the projections by Imperial College London I posted just a few weeks ago.

I'm not arguing for or against lockdown, but shouldn't tech companies be keeping their nose out the public forums where we have discussions like this?

“We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local healthy authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance," said the statement. "However, content that provides sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic (EDSA) context is allowed -- for example, news coverage of this interview with additional context. From the very beginning of the pandemic, we’ve had clear policies against COVID-19 misinformation and are committed to continue providing timely and helpful information at this critical time.”

-Youtube's response

Guy:Incognito

2u2me wrote: »

.
, but shouldn't tech companies be keeping their nose out the public forums where we have discussions like this?

No. They're companies that exist to make money. They chose what goes on their platforms.

You're free to make your own website or social media platform and put anything you want on it.

Miike

I'm not being funny with this comment, I want to say that at the outset but I agree with YouTube on this.

The sheer amount of misinformation that's been tossed around re COVID19 is crime against humanity. People take the title of "doctor" to mean anything they want it to mean within their own context and start spouting the content they hear as bona fide fact. Without seeing the content of that video in question I can't speak to it's evidence base or nature but I will say if they provided sufficient evidence in retort, YouTube would be compelled to leave it there, surely? I'm not saying the two gentlemen in the video are quacks either, or anything like that but what they say off the cuff could serve detriment to the perceptions on the seriousness of this crisis.

You can see on this very forum that these type of videos have had a serious impact in how people have become complacent with the spread of this virus and that worries me, on a personal level. This is no time for risking that people become victims of misinformation because now more than ever that will cost lives.

2u2me

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No. They're companies that exist to make money. They chose what goes on their platforms.

You're free to make your own website or social media platform and put anything you want on it.

Do you think I or anybody will ever be able to challenge a company like google?
I would say they've become a public space, especially in this lockdown, they are a public forum where people congregate.

If it means going standard oil on them I'm all for it.

Guy:Incognito

2u2me wrote: »

Do you think I or anybody will ever be able to challenge a company like google?
.

Not the point. They've no obligation to air your opinions for you just because they're successfull .

Should everyone be entitled to 10 minutes free air time on Netflix or sky news?

2u2me

Miike wrote: »

Without seeing the content of that video in question I can't speak to it's evidence base or nature but I will say if they provided sufficient evidence in retort, YouTube would be compelled to leave it there, surely? I'm not saying the two gentlemen in the video are quacks either, or anything like that but what they say off the cuff could serve detriment to the perceptions on the seriousness of this crisis.

I'm all for removing content that is claiming to be an authority and providing wrong data, but this is about drawing different conclusions from the data which is not disputed.

The video is pretty long nearly one hour, but in the initial link. I can only say that every statistic I've checked is true, but they mention a lot. Here is what Elon Musk had to say about it
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865

2u2me

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Not the point. They've no obligation to air your opinions for you just because they're successfull .

Should everyone be entitled to 10 minutes free air time on Netflix or sky news?

I see you've gone on the attack against me. I'm done responding unless you come back with a reasonable point.

Charlie19

I watched about 40 minutes of the video and while they did make a good argument on some of the issues regarding Covid19, they constantly referred to the number of deaths due to Covid19 being very small and for this I switched it off.

They also pushed the idea that domestic abuse and child abuse has risen a great deal due to the stress of people being in lockdown. If someone has it in them to abuse another human being, I don't think you can really blame lockdown for that.

I did think it was strange though that YouTube took the video down.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No. They're companies that exist to make money. They chose what goes on their platforms.

You're free to make your own website or social media platform and put anything you want on it.

It’s no coincidence they always lean the same way on these issues...

Guy:Incognito

2u2me wrote: »

I see you've gone on the attack against me. I'm done responding unless you come back with a reasonable point.

What are you on about gone on the attack ?

You asked if youd ever be able to challenge a company like google.

Google are very succesfull. They may well have the no 1 video sharing site in the world.That doesn't make them any more obliged to show whatever video you want them too than some lad running an off the shelf website that no ones ever visited.

You need a better arguement for why they should allow all videos than "everyone uses them"

sheepsh4gger

Nothing new. The whole topic is banned.

It's not YOU tube but THEY tube now, they are pulling up the ladder they used to climb the wall.

tigerboon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No. They're companies that exist to make money. They chose what goes on their platforms.

You're free to make your own website or social media platform and put anything you want on it.

But hasn't their defence against releasing evidence in trials always been that they are just that, a uncensored platform and they can only police it to an extent without interfering with freedom of speech. These are companies that refused to release data relating to terrorists. Why are they still allowing terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers etc use their encrypted messaging services. It's hardly in line with their new found social responsibility.

pjohnson

Conspiracy Theories arent allowed and are never monetised now.


Bitchute is where the conspiracy theories go. Not even it monetizes and I think it relies solely on donations.

Beasty

Another - "we should all be outraged" thread