Let's look at the death rates, no it's not. They're similar in prevalence and in death rate.
That statement alone is justification for removing their video as a public health hazard.
That statement alone is justification for removing their video as a public health hazard.
if so, why this, and not others?
Here they claim SARS-NCOV-2 is "similar in prevalance and death rate" to flu, somehow missing the fact that the former reached that point in one month and keeps going unless extensive social distancing, lockdowns and mask wearing is put in place.
I hate censorship, but I support censoring information sourced from the idiocracy (or malevolent foreign power as the case may be).
also, when experts themselves (not these 2 guys) have come up with different recommendations - and cant agree with themselves, youtube should allow a free exchange of ideas.
they are free (and should) to add a notice that says that it is potentially false, etc.
But I also think this particular instance is not the right hill for people who care about that to die on. It’s a form of falsely or mistakenly crying wolf and will cost them credibility.
now, what if the theatre owner has no way to know if there is a fire or not (lets assume he is locked in a room), some guy screams fire, a bunch of people run out, another guy says running out will make it worse, some should sit down, some should walk out, etc.
i am just making this up to tell that the theatre owner (youtube) simply has no way to tell. In this case, he is not even responsible for the theatre ( as youtube has argued in courts before)
I'm sure Google would like to have no risk and simply host pirated content like they used to.