YouTube Blocks All Anti-Vaccine Content

[ratiocinator]

If only one side of controversial issues is allowed access to the media, who is going to trust the even-handed objectivity of what the media tells them?

Vaccination isn't really controversial in the sense that pretty much all the people who know what they're talking about are in agreement. It's a manufactured controversy, constructed for ideological and political reasons. It's no different than when the tobacco companies were still trying to pretend that the link between smoking and lung cancer and other health problems was controversial when everybody who was independent agreed that it was settled.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

What about independent doctors not on a juggernauts payroll that can interfere with their credentials forcing them to be mouthpieces instead of professional opinion?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The doctor isn't the confused one.

I'll be brief.

Why would I (and anyone) go to the doctors to ask about vaccine side effects when I decided not to get it?

Wouldn't the doctor say, "okay. You come to me to ask about side effects to a vaccine you don't want to take?"

Set aside your defense for a min.

Does that logic make sense to you???

If so, how?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

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

That's your opinion.

Not vaccinating doesn't tell you who has social contact. It tells you nothing about the person s habits, health, intentions, whether they've had COVID, whether they were informed or misinformed, and whether they are against the vaccine.

That's all on you. Assumptions arent facts. The facts can't prove the above because whatever the reason they don't vaccinate is individual and subjective.

 

[epronovost]

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

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

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

It is wrong though unless they are immuno-suppressed or too young. Then they are objectively wrong.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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

Private entities and outlets aren't obligated to accommodate all kinds of speech. I support the right to free speech unless it harms someone or encroaches on their freedoms (e.g., incitement and calls to violence, slander or libel with harmful consequences for the target, etc.), but equally importantly, I make a distinction between public entities and private ones. I don't think the same standards should apply to both as far as allowed speech goes.

YouTube and social media websites are privately owned, so they're free to do as they please concerning the moderation of the content on the platforms.

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

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

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

Vaccines aren't a controversial issue among the relevant expert/scientific communities; they're only "controversial" among some laypeople who lack sufficient credentials to meaningfully judge such scientific issues or fringe experts who have no peer-reviewed, reliable evidence for their claims.

Anti-vaxxers have been dismissing all kinds of scientific evidence for decades, and many of them continue to trust obscure, unreliable media or fringe conspiracy theorists and ideologues. I don't think that YouTube's ban on anti-vax misinformation will suddenly change anything in any significant way or that not banning said misinformation would have somehow convinced most anti-vaxxers to change their minds.

 

[epronovost]

Who determines that?

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

Except that's not the case in this particular situation. There is a universal consensus amongst medical experts on the subject and some information is wrong and extremely easy to debunk (like 5G causes the disease). We are not talking about something contentious like the many world hypothesis of string theory or the identity of Jack the Ripper. We are talking about verifiable information and known medical science.

 

[Koldo]

What about independent doctors not on a juggernauts payroll that can interfere with their credentials forcing them to be mouthpieces instead of professional opinion?

What doctors do you have in mind specifically?

 

[Koldo]

That's your opinion.

Not vaccinating doesn't tell you who has social contact. It tells you nothing about the person s habits, health, intentions, whether they've had COVID, whether they were informed or misinformed, and whether they are against the vaccine.

That's all on you. Assumptions arent facts. The facts can't prove the above because whatever the reason they don't vaccinate is individual and subjective.

Considering the way you have phrased it I think you might not quite understand what he was talking about.
Here it is: "In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's largely useless. Most people don't have access to medical reviews nor do they have the relevent expertise to understand the research material.

What the layman should do though is consult a medical doctor to get his or her opinion on the subject and keep themselves informed of the recommandation of their national health agency and that of other countries or international bodies.

Proper research, medical doctor's opinion and health agency around the world all agree on the subject of vaccination which is highly recommanded if not outright demanded for all people above the age of 12 beside a rare few exception linked to immune system suppression.

True.
Both sides are pretty much in the same boat of "expertise" and go off of what other experts and doctors tell them when making decisions to get or not to get the vaccine. Both parties can depend on misinformation or propaganda. Both parties can make decisions off of fear rather than rational. It just depends on the individual person.

They should, yes.
Most people really don't need to go to their doctors to get their opinion. Taking the vaccine is taking it at one's own risk, so there's no issue there.

It's not like it's knocking people dead or anything like that.

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

If you're making a claim of people's ignorance without generalization its something to keep in mind before jumping to conclusions. We don't know.

I would hope we wouldn't really put too much emphasis on motives. Unfortunately, not all provaxxers agree with this sentiment.

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

The only reason to listen to them is if you know you're considering taking the vaccine and it may be worth your while. Because I have health condition, I would personally go to my doctors and not 100% depend on the CDC as a bible to tell me what to do and what not to do.

You guys treat the experts like god. That's totally different than going to your own doctor who suggested a given med and you questioning him despite his expertise.

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

I would hope they do not to prove the vaccine is insufficient but give the public (those who are more skeptical of their healthcare advice) can get both sides and assess accordingly. It's not to challenge the efficiency of the vaccine but keeping people informed there are cons involved without downplaying them heavily. It leaves the impression of government "hiding" something. Whether it is true or not "we don't know" but I'm sure a lot of people will say it's an antivax thing even though they don't know either.

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

When politics are involved and the heavy push there is a lot of bias. Can you imagine an expert finding out something extremely bad about the vaccine but he's not allowed to express it due to the push for people to get it?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is heavily true experts have more knowledge they have to suppress because its degraded so much they don't want to throw off public trust.

If the experts can't give you whats the worse that can happen without downplaying, I'd be a bit suspicious.

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

I never heard of that being misinformation. I didn't get it anywhere. I don't look up conspiracy theories and anything of that type of "nonesense." Why do you think we're not playing it by ear?

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

I'm heavily surprised provaxxers don't see it. I really am. In my opinion, how to say, the media and government has influenced you so much it's really hard for you to see other perspectives. Economy division is not a enemy vs saints type of thing. I mean, I posted a list and examples of how propaganda is at play but provaxxer bias makes it hard for them to even read it without downplaying it or rebutting it without discredit. I mean when I read facts and all I don't discredit it. I don't say COVID isn't real and things of that, um, nonsense. But I'm surprised there are a few people that do. The whole thing is just making me shocked but thankfully, when I'm not online it doesn't cross my mind. I don't have strong opinions "like yours" since I don't know people personally to judge.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What doctors do you have in mind specifically?

Those in the Association of Physicians and Surgeons for example.

 

[epronovost]

I don’t think it’s accurate to claim ALL doctors on the planet recommend a “one size fits all” vaccine approach to dealing with the virus.


“We are hundreds of doctors and scientists from all corners of the globe. We have written three letters to the European Medicines Agency, urgently warning of short term and long term dangers from COVID-19 vaccines, including clotting, bleeding and platelet abnormalities. We first began warning of blood-related risks before media reports of clotting led to vaccine suspensions around the world.”
https://doctors4covidethics.org/about/



“WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective”
https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/


“In a public comment to the CDC, molecular biologist and toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., called to immediately halt Covid vaccine production and distribution. Citing fertility, blood-clotting concerns (coagulopathy), and immune escape, Dr. Lindsay explained to the committee the scientific evidence showing that the coronavirus vaccines are not safe.”
Halt Covid Vaccine, Research Scientist Urges CDC

In an absolutely literal case you are correct, there is a minuscule minority of doctors who oppose vaccination for COVID-19. There is a few cranks and misquoted researchers, but all of them were either proven wrong or have so far failed to prove their claim and are opposed by the all world health agency and the overwhelming majority of their peers. For example, concern of fertility have no evidential basis, concerns on blood-clotting are so rare they are difficult to parse from normal incidence. It also misinform people by conveniently forgetting that there are about 6 different COVID vaccines available, only three of which were potentially linked to a rare problem of blood clotting and a single one to a rare neurological syndrome. Only two vaccines were held back (both for blood clotting issues) and both were later cleared after health agency and other experts reviewed the work of these experts and their studies to make sure they were safe. Plus, these website are also nests of misinformation if only because they make people believe that those dangers aren't known and aren't told to those who take the vaccine. It's mandatory to announce all possible side effects and their rates before taking the shot.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Considering the way you have phrased it I think you might not quite understand what he was talking about.
Here it is: "In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

You have to unbold and remove the links. If I didn't understand give a short comment on how so I can know the context and point you're making in the quote.

 

[epronovost]

The only reason to listen to them is if you know you're considering taking the vaccine and it may be worth your while. Because I have health condition, I would personally go to my doctors and not 100% depend on the CDC as a bible to tell me what to do and what not to do.

To be precise, if you have a special medical condition that would make you ineligible to take the vaccine don't take. If you aren't sure, you absolutely must consult and follow through with the result. If your doctor tells you, it's fine and another one confirms it (should you doubt the first) then the only reasonable thing to do is to get vaccinated. Not doing it is foolish.

Not following expert opinions and instead following your guts all the while making unaccountable risk assessments in a time of pandemic is basically being extremely stupid, being misinformed, being malicious or a combination of there off.

 

[Koldo]

You have to unbold and remove the links. If I didn't understand give a short comment on how so I can know the context and point you're making in the quote.

You didn't seem to understand the concept of social contract. Here it is: "In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order."

 

[Koldo]

Those in the Association of Physicians and Surgeons for example.

What are they saying that would count as anti-vaccine?

 

[InChrist]

O

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



YouTube blocks all anti-vaccine content

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

I am certainly in agreement that private entities have the right to control their own content. I think the danger arises when the government puts threatening pressure on these private companies to censor according to their dictates.
The author below addresses the issue very well. She is not some right winger, but an avowed socialist, something I don’t adhere to. Nevertheless, the points and dangers she brings up concerning government control over media is
very concerning.


“The reasons change, but the agenda remains the same. Sometimes it’s foreign election meddling, sometimes it’s the Capitol riot, sometimes it’s domestic extremism and white supremacy, sometimes it’s misinformation about a virus and vaccines, but for every reason given the instruction is the same: censor online communications in accordance with the wishes of the US government. Or else.

These threats have been explicitly made, but really they did not need to be. Everyone involved in this dance is acutely aware that the US government has the ability to make things much harder and far less lucrative for these Silicon Valley tech companies. This could mean actions ranging from fines and minor regulations all the way up to the revocation of Section 230 protections or full-scale antitrust cases which can go as far as breaking up online platforms in the same way the government broke up AT&T and Standard Oil”

The US Government Threatens Tech Companies To Push Censorship Agendas

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To be precise, if you have a special medical condition that would make you ineligible to take the vaccine don't take. If you aren't sure, you absolutely must consult and follow through with the result. If your doctor tells you, it's fine and another one confirms it (should you doubt the first) then the only reasonable thing to do is to get vaccinated. Not doing it is foolish.

True. I'm not interested in taking it, so I have no reason to go. But if I did, though, I'd definitely ask. Looking it up there doesn't seem to be a problem but I don't use CDC to make medical decisions. That's why websites say "this is for informational purposes only." I'm not sure why that's not emphasized with the vaccine push. They have the disclaimer for liability reasons. Though, I read that people who give the vaccine can't be held liable in lawsuits (Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19 Supplementary Information).

Not following expert opinions and instead following your guts all the while making unaccountable risk assessments in a time of pandemic is basically being extremely stupid, being misinformed, being malicious or a combination of there off.

I think both are useful. We do that with medical decisions, at least I'd hope many people do. If not, they wouldn't get second and third opinions. When I had my cancer scare you better believed I got more than one opinion, tests, and was skeptical enough for my doctors to explain things to me. Why on earth would the vaccine be any different?

 

[epronovost]

I think both are useful. We do that with medical decisions, at least I'd hope many people do. If not, they wouldn't get second and third opinions. When I had my cancer scare you better believed I got more than one opinion, tests, and was skeptical enough for my doctors to explain things to me. Why on earth would the vaccine be any different?

There is nothing wrong with asking a second or third opinion from recognized medical experts, but after you receive the second or third time the same recommendation, it's time to act upon those. Not taking those opinions in account is ridiculous foolishness; claiming to want to have confirmation yet not seeking it is malicious dishonesty.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is nothing wrong with asking a second or third opinion from recognized medical experts, but after you receive the second or third time the same recommendation, it's time to act upon those. Not taking those opinions in account is ridiculous foolishness; claiming to want to have confirmation yet not seeking it is malicious dishonesty.

(I read) I don't agree. That's why we get second and third opinions so we (not just doctors) assess whether what the doctor tells them what is in our best interest. Any doctor that argues with his patients and tells them they are foolish for the decisions contrary to the doctor's suggestions is not an ethical doctor.