Hacker News Reader

Comment by thelean12 | Hacker News Reader

Why in the world are you still throwing that line out like it means anything?

1. The world was desperately trying to get normal folks to stop buying up all the masks to save them for healthcare professionals.

2. Society didn't figure out the homemade mask trend for a while, nor did we figure out whether or not homemade masks would even work against covid for a while given all the factors, including people touching their face with the mask or feeling more empowered to interact with people with masks on.

3. At the time, it wasn't known how widespread covid was for the general public. Healthcare providers were massively more at risk and were reusing N95s for months.

Could the orgs have done better with their messaging? Sure. But fuck off with this line. It's straight up disinformation to suggest that this is a reason not to trust the CDC or WHO or whatever.

View on HN

I don't disagree with any of those points. WHO decided to burn their credibility in order to try and keep masks available for healthcare workers. Okay, fine. But that credibility is actually burnt. They can't un-burn it.

As soon as it was apparent that they had ulterior motives by downplaying mask effectiveness, I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice.

And they sure as hell don't deserve to be the arbiter of scientific speech. By choosing to rely on WHO's advice, YouTube's credibility caught flame as well.

And how many people died from COVID because they received this message: "Masks aren't needed. WHO said so. Now they're backtracking because they want to control us."?

Whatever benefit WHO created for healthcare workers early on by lying about masks was probably more than offset by the harm they caused with that loss of public trust.

> And how many people died from COVID because they received this message: "Masks aren't needed. WHO said so. Now they're backtracking because they want to control us."?

You're literally contributing to that message by discounting WHO as a valuable resource.

> I wrote them off as a trustworthy source of data or advice.

I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world.

Are you just being petty? Are you lying for fun? Something else?

No, I'm serious. I don't troll or lie on HN.

> I refuse to believe that you both understand the reason behind telling people not to wear masks at the very beginning and yet lack the critical thinking skills to realize they're one of the best resources for covid recommendations in the world.

I understand their reasoning for trying to downplay masks. It wasn't good reasoning, but I see what their thought process probably was. But they didn't think ahead to the 2nd-order affects of ruining their credibility like that. Once they demonstrated that they're willing to put neutral data under the heel of PR concerns, then it is perfectly fair to see subsequent messaging from them as more of the same. I updated my priors.

I'm not saying WHO is wrong now. I'm just saying they're not reliable. They are valuable if you're looking for data, but you better verify it and cross-check it. And you have to now consider possible alternative explanations for any message they put out there. That's my critical thinking skills at work.

My trust in public figures and institutions (and NGOs) will return when I see them speaking more transparently. For example, "We don't know enough yet to determine if face masks reduce Covid risk, for the wearer or for others around them."

Oh, and trying to save masks for healthcare workers by denying their effectiveness could never have worked anyway. As soon as it was apparent the workers all were masked up 24/7, the public would simply ask, "Why?".

WHO's responsibility is not to a single person. Their policies are designed for the society as a whole. Minimizing the possibility of infection for critical jobs is much more valuable than minimizing the infection probability to a single person. Society is more than just me or you or our families.

They could have taken the path you are suggesting (possibly under inconclusive benefits of other types of masks) but that could have backfired and caused a lot more dmg than good.

You can't expect an entity like WHO to solely care about you as a person.

I re-read my comment and do see a lot of "my" and "I" in there. I should have thought about that more.

WHO failed in their societal obligation by diminishing their credibility. The misinformation may have increased mask supply to critical workers for a short period, but at the cost of strengthening the anti-maskers' message in the long run. And that cost was much larger IMO.

They created a long-term problem in order to fix a short-term one.

> You can't expect an entity like WHO to solely care about you as a person.

No, of course not. My whole point here is that WHO did the PR equivalent of that CEO who chases quarterly earnings at the expense of their company's future. Except instead of money, they did it with public confidence.

Let me get this straight: you support Youtube's decision to censor accurate criticism of WHO guidelines, because you think spreading lies and disinformation served a useful purpose? That's despicable.

What are you even saying?

Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines?

Or are you saying that YouTube should allow complete bullshit, lies, and misinformation mixed in with the few bits of fair criticism?

Both options are completely absurd.

> Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines?

No, I don't think YouTube should be in the "arbiter of truth" business at all! That said, I do understand the argument some people make, that misinformation should be censored. Note that you didn't make this argument. You made the argument that misinformation should (in some cases) be promoted, while truthful information should be censored.

Those are the only two options though because they either moderate or they don't... so what are you saying exactly?

I am saying: what are other options besides the two I mentioned, and the one that they're using?

I'm saying that the two I mentioned are absolutely absurd. Not even worth a conversation.

The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online.

> The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online.

Ok, fair enough. However, in your original post (which appears to be no longer visible) you stated that Youtube made this particular decision to censor accurate information in order to spread lies (with a "common good" purpose). I don't like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com