[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chie...
That's not to say there isn't outright incorrect fake news, but in hindsight some guidelines will always seem more correct than others.
Fine, things like this "happen". That is, incredibly cowardly and dishonest persons can play roles in otherwise not completely cowardly and dishonest organizations. However, where is the criticism? Does this guy still have a job at the WHO, what would you guess?
People who look the other way with something like this have nothing to tell me, ever, just like someone who murders people doesn't get to tell me to not use swear words.
Anyone who claims to be concerned about outcome and public safety, and wants to cooperation of people who pay attention and are not blackmailable -- I dare say, the kind of people whose support you want, not the "majority", but the ones with principles and determination, who will stick with things as long as the things demand it, not as long as they are cozy -- should get the WHO as far away from this as soon as possible. That shouldn't even need saying, but now that it's been said a lot, failure to even acknowledge the issue simply means some people do not care about outcome, they care about agenda and the prepared networks to push it, and others just blindly fall in line.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
Telling people to not fly across the world is bannable misinormation acording to Wojcicki's definition. Of course, it wouldn't be banned, because the actual rule is a much more subjective "whatever makes YT look bad to advertisers and PR"
http://www.flanderstoday.eu/politics/white-house-praises-bru...
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.
"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...
However, I enjoy dabbling in the crazy side of youtube now and again, and there is absolutely content out there that will harm people, and there seems to be an audience for it. It seems like one of those lamentable 'this is why we can't have nice things' stories.
The line youtube is drawing seems like the wrong line. Youtube has a storied history of making dumb choices and an inscrutable system to appeal their arbitrary decisions. I'm pretty confident they will continue to mess it up.
I would like to be a free speech maximalist; it's easier since there are no tough choices to make. Unfortunately there has always been speech that is not protected (incitement/yelling fire) and we are left with the difficult task of delineating which side of the line some speech falls.
In the end that means we must always be ready to fight to keep our freedom of speech.
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.
> Who: 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.
> Potential Youtuber early January: There is news going around of a new SARS-like pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan on Chinese Social Media. SARS was very contagious, so if this is SARS we should be very worried of a pandemic, especially with our interconnected world.
> WHO: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus
> WHO: Not a pandemic
> WHO: China is transparent and setting new standard for outbreak control
> WHO: Advice members not to ban travel from China
My guess would be the intent and general enforcement of the rule will not be designed to preclude criticism of the form "The WHO is politically hobbled by needing Chinese cooperation, leading to awkward situations like the Taiwan exchange" or "The WHO was slow to adjust mask guidance in response to increasing on-the-ground evidence of asymptomatic transmission" or "The one study about surface life of Coronavirus is based on very limited research design parameters and the in-air survival number seems totally indefensible", or even an Ioaniddis-style "We're vastly overestimating the threat here" objection motivated by "good science" concerns.
I wouldn't preclude, like every stupid automated Google system, that legitimate content would be removed. But I think the intent is not to remove scientifically-oriented criticism or guidance or expert debate or context. I think it's meant to remove cranks.
I understand that denotation is important, just as it is when parsing say privacy policies or AUP documents or whatever -- and if people have criticism then YouTube should refine the language here. But we shouldn't blind ourselves to the fact that reality is primarily connotative.
I have zero objection to major providers collectively deciding they don't want to do business with Del Bigtree. Others might. Regardless of where you end up on that, I think we can agree that the debate here is about Del Bigtree, not about epidemiologists disagreeing.