
YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy - ppod
https://unherd.com/thepost/professor-karol-sikora-fear-is-more-dangerous-than-the-virus/
======
burke_holland
Looks alive and well to me...

[https://youtu.be/uk2YZfnsOPg](https://youtu.be/uk2YZfnsOPg)

~~~
takeda
So just guerilla advertising? So weird, that video is in the article that
claims it was banned.

~~~
raspasov
I would have been really surprised if they actually removed it.

The points made in the video are mostly sensible. They acknowledge the many
unknowns.

It more or less advocates for the Swedish model of dealing with this vs. most
other countries.

~~~
ehsankia
Their automated system has a non-zero false-positive rate. It will from time
to time accidentally take down legitimate videos, which they restore fairly
quickly once you request a manual review, such as in this case.

Yet people still jump to conclusion and assume malintent, posting headlines
which imply Youtube is intentionally removing these videos. Clickbait.

~~~
soraminazuki
I've heard enough of these machine learning buzzword bingos every week when
things like this happen. The thing is, I don't care. I just want things like
this to never happen again.

~~~
skronch
This is akin to saying "I've heard enough of these NHTSA reports every week
when car accidents happen. The thing is, I don't care. I just want things like
this to never happen again."

A 0% error rate is a great aspirational target. But it's also important to
acknowledge that a complex system may never be perfect. Insisting otherwise is
ignoring reality.

~~~
soraminazuki
Except that these takedowns aren't "accidents." It's more of a catch-all
filter that's designed to proactively censor content that even slightly
touches on certain matters.

------
acituan
I don’t agree with the interview contents, nor think professorship alone gives
sufficient credibility in the face of a novel pandemic, data of which is in
the process of emerging. That said, I don’t want youtube to be in charge of
deciding what is credible or not. They don’t have in-house experts on these
domains, they don’t have a magic epistemology machine that spits out the
“facts”. They are good at writing web services, they shouldn’t be in charge of
things like sound epidemiology.

I always imagine past figures that had adversarial relationships with
authority at their times like Socrates, Galileo or Jesus and realize how
Youtube would definitely take their videos down, shut their channels down and
Susan Wojcicki would say things like “on matters of geocentricity vs
heliocentricity we will follow the expert opinion of Catholic Church”. Then I
think how might we be hurting ourselves today in ways we don’t even know by
letting these tech institutions be the ultimate arbiter of our meaning making
machinery.

~~~
_bxg1
And on the other end of the spectrum we have people being indoctrinated into
violent conspiracy groups like QAnon, or being prompted to set fire to cell
towers, or bringing measles back from the dead, because of YouTube videos.
There's a line to be drawn here - and it's a tricky line, to be sure - but
"YouTube should be totally neutral and not pull anything" is not a viable
answer.

~~~
xhkkffbf
Let me be contrary: who shut down millions of businesses and put millions out
of work? It wasn't QAnon. It was the state -- and it looks like YouTube is
aligned with the pro-shutdown folks who don't want their wisdom questioned.

Now I'm a big believer in keeping things shut. I thing prudence is super-
important. But QAnon's actions are mainly talk. The state's, however, are
different.

~~~
JohnBooty

        Let me be contrary: who shut down millions of businesses and put millions out of work?
    

Well, I'd blame the pandemic itself.

Sweden provides an imperfect but interesting what-if scenario for countries
wondering what would have happened if they'd imposed little to no lockdown
restrictions.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-
economy-t...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-economy-to-
contract-as-severely-as-the-rest-of-europe.html)

Their economy is still taking a very severe hit despite retail businesses
remaining open there, because people are shying away from making purchases and
visiting shops.

You can (correctly) say that many governments took the decision out of
peoples' hands. Perhaps the people of country XYZ would have made a different
choice. But Sweden's example suggests that economies would have been screwed
pretty hard no matter what.

~~~
erebrus
On top of that, Sweeden is recording very high death rates and latest
estimates point to around 7% in immunity.

~~~
JChase2
Even if they had 30% immunity, that still leaves the majority of the
population exposed. I'm sure 30% would be very much preferable (if it's even
true), but probably not good enough to allow things like concerts or maybe
even sit down restaurants to reopen.

~~~
myk9001
There are estimates that herd-immunity is achievable at 43%

"The disease-induced herd immunity level is 43% ... when immunity is induced
by disease spreading, the proportion infected in groups with high contact
rates is greater than in groups with low contact rates"

[https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085](https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085)

------
chrischen
These types of censorship patterns are _identical_ to that employed by China
in _intent_. The practical consequences are the same as well.

In China information censorship is due to the government trying to promote
peace and harmony. Aka, the government thinks it knows what’s best for people
and forces it on people.

Facebook et al also encounter these same problems, where they see people
spreading “misinformation.” It’s a hard problem to solve, but they essentially
resort to taking the same types of censorship as China that everyone so easily
criticizes.

The irony is Google is now doing it too after claiming to have left the market
due to forced censorship.

Some people may cite China’s censorship/banning of Falun Gong. What people
don’t bother to look into is that Falun Gong is an anti-gay, really out there
cult. Their censorship justifications of that is not unlike censoring “fake
news” like this “doctor.” While it may be right (of course their methodology
may be questionable), it completely short circuits the ability for critical
thinkers to actually analyze all content. It’s done supposedly for the greater
good.

~~~
vbezhenar
As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same.
If you own website, you have all rights to do any censorship you want. Now if
your government will try to fine or arrest you because you hosted some video
on your website, that's censorship. You can avoid youtube, but you can't avoid
your government.

That said, I agree that huge websites like youtube, facebook, instagram are
something more than just another web resource and probably some regulations
should be applied to them. But it's very sensitive subject.

~~~
majewsky
> As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same.

Very few people even within this peer group have the capability of hosting
videos on their own website _unless_ the video is intended for a very small
audience (say, less than 1000 viewers per day).

If you want to reach any significant number of people, you absolutely need to
go through one of the major video hosters or pay for a CDN. And that's before
you consider the network effects of YouTube.

~~~
pertymcpert
Then they don't need to use video, they can use written words.

There's no reason why they should be able to use the infrastructure of private
companies to scale their message as much as they want.

Or they can just pay for a CDN as you say. This just highlights the
differences between the West and China even more. In the west, harmful
messages need to stand on their own two feet. If they don't have support, then
they can be kicked off private platforms. No need for the government to
intervene.

~~~
busymom0
CloudFlare, the biggest CDN, despite their words and claims routinely censors
sites meanwhile defending hosting terrorist site's free speech.

[https://www.fastcompany.com/90312063/how-cloudflare-
straddle...](https://www.fastcompany.com/90312063/how-cloudflare-straddles-
its-role-as-privacy-champion-and-hate-speech-enabler)

> the company serves at least seven groups on the U.S. State Department’s list
> of foreign terrorist organizations, including al-Shabab, the Popular Front
> for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), al-Quds Brigades, the Kurdistan
> Workers’ Party, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Hamas.

> CEP has sent letters to Cloudflare since February 13, 2017, warning about
> clients on the service, including Hamas, the Taliban, the PFLP, and the
> Nordic Resistance Movement. The latest letter, from February 15, 2019, warns
> of what CEP identified as three pro-ISIS propaganda websites.

So CF bans even remotely right leaning content but claims terrorist
organization's websites are free speech:

[https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-
speech/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-speech/)

~~~
elliekelly
CloudFlare is under no obligation to follow a policy you find logical. If you
dislike their business practices or find them problematic you might contact
your local elected officials and request regulation. Otherwise you’ll have to
wait and see if the magic of the free market changes anything.

~~~
busymom0
All I am pointing out is the hypocrisy and false statements CF and others
make. CF's actions are much different from their words. They say they need to
allow dangerous terrorists because of free speech but then ban other speech
which they don't like.

> you might contact your local elected officials and request regulation

Voicing my opinion on a public forum is one way to do that.

~~~
busymom0
Why is everyone downvoting comments without even explaining?

------
SeanLuke
> professor of medicine

According to this guy's Wikipedia page, he has claimed many times to be a
professor of oncology at Imperial College: but he is not, and Imperial College
has sought legal options to stop him from making this claim.

The page is full of other fairly astonishing stuff, not the least of which is
apparent fraud connected with the Lockerbie Bombing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora)

I get the feeling that there's more to this story than this article suggests.

~~~
tibbydudeza
So he is a paid shill. At least he does not promote drinking bleach.

~~~
busymom0
> At least he does not promote drinking bleach

Lets not resolve to flame wars using factually false info which nobody ever
said.

------
otikik
Is it this Karol Sikora?

> Promotion of alternative medicine

> Sikora and the School of Medicine at Buckingham have in the past been
> supportive of alternative medicine. For a short time, Buckingham offered a
> diploma in "integrated medicine" (a relatively recent euphemism for
> alternative medicine). Sikora was a Foundation Fellow of Prince Charles'
> now-defunct alternative medicine lobby group The Prince's Foundation for
> Integrated Health[24] and Chair of the Faculty of Integrated Medicine, which
> is unaffiliated with any university; it includes Drs Rosy Daniel and Mark
> Atkinson, who led Buckingham's "integrated medicine" course. > > Sikora is
> also a "professional member" of the College of Medicine, a patient-oriented
> healthcare lobby group also linked to the Prince of Wales that appeared
> shortly after the collapse of the Prince's Foundation. The College has been
> criticised extensively in the British Medical Journal for its promotion of
> alternative medicine. These claims have been contested by the College. He is
> on the advisory panel of complementary cancer care charity Penny Brohn
> Cancer Care (formerly the Bristol Cancer Help Centre) of whom Prince Charles
> is a patron, and is a patron of the Iain Rennie Hospice at Home. Statements
> by Sikora have been critical of unproven methods of alternative medicine,
> after Parliament member Lord Maurice Saatchi proposed a bill allowing
> doctors to use unproven experimental therapies, and he has spoken out
> against claims that an alkaline diet can cure cancer.

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora#Promotion_of_alte...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora#Promotion_of_alternative_medicine)

It sounds like he might actually have infringed Youtube's "Harmful or
dangerous content" guidelines:

> Harmful or dangerous content > > Don't post videos that encourage others to
> do things that might cause them to get badly hurt, especially kids. Videos
> showing such harmful or dangerous acts may get age-restricted or removed
> depending on their severity.

Source: [https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-
guidelines](https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines)

~~~
mensetmanusman
With this reasoning, all food videos showing desserts with high calories and
high sugar content should be banned, since obesity is an epidemic that kills
and is harmful.

~~~
Barrin92
Not a bad idea. At least direct advertisement or false information about
unhealthy food should be banned. This has already happened with tobacco or
high caloric drinks in some countries like Singapore in physical stores.

These are relatively simple steps that would improve public health
dramatically, I'm not really sure why these kinds of arguments are presented
like some sort of self-evident zinger against censoring dangerous content.

~~~
mellow2020
> These are relatively simple steps that would improve public health
> dramatically

And nuking a city stops all crime in it. If you only look at one tiny aspect
and ignore everything else, just about anything can be made to seem sensible.

------
benjaminwootton
Wow that’s dangerous. The interviewee is an ex director at the WHO with over
50 years experience as an Oncologist.

He's being deplatformed for even slightly questioning the conventional wisdom.

Wow! These tech companies hold way too much power.

[https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora](https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora)

~~~
xhkkffbf
Even if he's a raving insane person, he should be left online.

Indeed, they probably don't censor the people who are truly insane because
that's obvious to any viewer. They only censor the people who say things they
don't like.

~~~
MattGaiser
> Indeed, they probably don't censor the people who are truly insane because
> that's obvious to any viewer. They only censor the people who say things
> they don't like.

Alex Jones?

------
mchusma
I don't really care the content at all, but I really wish these platforms took
the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral
carriers of information. In the US, I don't know an obvious issue besides
legislative change to enforce this.

However, once they consider themselves as "curators" of information with near-
monopoly status, I hope they are litigated against successfully.

~~~
antpls
YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more
viewers = more ads.

The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type
of content they are allowed to show.

The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media
(TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them

~~~
generalpass
> YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more
> viewers = more ads.

> The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the
> type of content they are allowed to show.

> The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media
> (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them

This assumes they don't have the legal resources to fend off such a case.

------
okreallywtf
I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while
misinformation is doing damage right this second.

The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the
information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure
that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once
misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The
analogy I think of is that when presented with a table full of junk food, its
hard to get people to pay attention to the veggie platter.

This study[1] indicates more success could be had with a new narrative that
doesn't just refute the misinformation, but crafts a new narrative with
additional information that can dislodge the other one, like a flank attack
instead a head on one. Anecdotally I've seen that work and I've also been
guilty of the lazy head on approach and seen it fail.

[1]
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134904.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170912134904.htm)

~~~
macinjosh
IMHO, this is an incredibly authoritarian point of view. It makes the
assumption that the content being censored or banned is both wrong and
damaging. I am not only referring to this specific case, but the interviewee
here is ostensibly someone of expertise being a professor of medicine. That
doesn't mean what they say is correct but at the very least they have direct
knowledge of the topic.

In the grand scheme of things, there isn't much that is universally agreed
upon even in professional/academic circles.

I would submit that limiting discussion because it doesn't fit the most
wideley accepted or palatable narrative is a magnitude more dangerous than
instead relying on people to take in all sides and decide for themselves.

Recall how Galileo Galilei was treated. History can and does repeat itself.

~~~
kiba
_IMHO, this is an incredibly authoritarian point of view._

Is it authoritarian if misinformation are being spread?

~~~
CyanBird
It is always authoritarian, yes. People do have the right to be wrong and make
mistakes, that's part of an indivials personal sovereignty

That said, having tens of thousands die bringing innocent people with them to
the grave is a matter of public policy and the very reason why governments are
not direct democracies but republics instead

I am happy that this video was removed, not because I trust YouTube, but
because I don't want to see people continue to die needlessly. Governments
have other tools to provide economic sustenance to those that require it. And
no, I won't go to the cinema, a mall or a restaurant simply "because they are
open" as I don't have the brain of a child to risk myself and my family for it

------
gnusty_gnurc
This is a bad trend. If scientists in China contradicted the government (and
directly - the WHO), it seems like YouTube would have censored them. Debate is
what sustains free society and free society will perish when certain
narratives become unquestionable.

------
jb775
It's probably about time we start discussing as a developer community how to
take meaningful actions to curb this behavior. Putting the particular topic
details here aside, I think everyone can agree it's very troubling that a
platform with as much power as Google is actively censoring speech they do not
agree with.

Not sure what the best action points would be, but I'm thinking we start by
speaking with our companies about redirecting ad-spending away from Google,
pausing any active development related to integrating Google products and seek
out alternatives, removing/replacing Google analytics (since this is where
tons of value is created for Google and allows them to follow users basically
everywhere), and seriously talk about unionization next-steps. Thoughts?

------
MattGaiser
I suggest everyone read this fellow's Wikipedia article:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora)

~~~
ppod
Do you think that such people should be banned from content distribution
channels?

~~~
scarface74
Yes. You have the right to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right
to force someone else to publish it. If you want to publish what you want free
of interference, pay for your own servers and bandwidth.

~~~
ppod
Of course, but I'm not asking about what rights distributors should have, I'm
asking normatively whether a distributor should ban people like this.

~~~
scarface74
A distributor is a private business that has the right to ban anyone they want
except for protected classes.

He can be his own distributor that’s the power of the internet.

~~~
filoleg
You are missing the point.

Yes, I fully agree with you that they have the right to remove whatever
content they want. And I absolutely don't want that right to be taken away
from them. However, I disagree with how they are currently utilizing that
power, even though they have full rights to do so.

It's kind of similar to how I support the 2nd amendment rights and don't want
them to be taken away from people (including open carry). But I disagree with
how certain people use it during protests by open-carrying at the airports or
in front of the city council building.

~~~
scarface74
I can see that. But the same reason that I am against the government
regulating tech is similar to why my position on gun control has gone from
being pro gun control to anti-gun control.

The government would probably go out of it’s way to make sure “Focus on the
Family” content would be allowed but not “Black Lives Matter” just like they
shut down the government in Michigan but the same conservatives passed laws
for stricter gun control when minorities started exercising their 2nd
amendment rights (the Mulliford Act).

~~~
filoleg
Fully in agreement with you on the actual legal positions regarding both tech
and gun control. I am also against government regulating either.

But it doesn't mean that I cannot be upset at youtube for exercising their
rights in ways that I disagree with. Mind you, I am not calling for a legal
action against them or to change laws pertaining to those rights. I am just
expressing that they shouldn't be exercising their rights in such a way, but
they should still have the legal right to do so. Mostly because I believe that
the unintended consequences of regulating that will be much worse (same with
gun control).

------
tibbydudeza
He is a oncologist so not an expert in the field of epidemiology.

The virus is getting "tired" ... really.

Lots of these contrarian "experts" popping up in youtube channels with rather
slick production values (wonder who is funding them) about social distancing
and lock down policies.

------
drunkpotato
YouTube consistently followed their policy of removing videos which promote
misinformation, disinformation, and policy proposals that contradict the World
Health Organization's official guidelines during an emergency pandemic.

I have my problems with YouTube, but this isn't censorship, and it isn't a
conspiracy to silence anyone. It's an effort to be responsible to public
health and safety. The hysteria I see here is completely unwarranted.

~~~
busymom0
Until February, WHO was saying COVID does not spread human to human and travel
restrictions won't help. So anyone who said "it does spread human to human"
and "travel restrictions will help" was considered misinformation and
conspiracy theorist.

February onwards, WHO did a full 180. But everyone who got censored before
then was the victim.

Same thing about effectiveness of wearing masks.

So anyone pointing out the obvious that "China cannot have lesser deaths than
Canada" is considered a "misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy
theorists" because they "contradict the World Health Organization's official
guidelines during an emergency pandemic".

How people don't see the clear danger of such censorship is beyond me. WHO
also says China has been transparent.

~~~
iso947
> WHO was saying COVID does not spread human to human

The WHO said there had been no reports of it spreading human to human. And
that was true, there hadn’t.

The reason your favourite conspiracy sources are taken offline is because they
lie - they make you, an otherwise intelligent person, believe something that
wasn’t true.

A favoured argument by one section of the internet is that “it doesn’t spread
from Children to Adults”. An extraordinary claim.

They interpret the statement “there have been limited cases of it spreading
from children” and treat that absense of evidence as an evidence of absence.

Note that in January, in a QA dated 9th, they did say

“Yes, some coronaviruses can be transmitted from person to person, usually
after close contact with an infected patient, for example, in a household
workplace, or health care centre.”

I.e coronaviruses in general spread, we haven’t seen this one spread yet.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200129195709/https://www.who.i...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200129195709/https://www.who.int/news-
room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses)

------
raspasov
Am I confused or the video is currently on YouTube?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg)

~~~
busymom0
It was reinstated:

[https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/12635183523471482...](https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1263518352347148288)

------
DanBC
> The serology results around the world (and forthcoming in Britain) don’t
> necessarily reveal the percentage of people who have had the disease

> He estimates 25-30% of the UK population has had Covid-19, and higher in the
> group that is most susceptible

Here's the Office for National Statistics household survey results. This is
only people living in households. (It doesn't include hospital patients, or
people living in care or nursing homes).

[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england21may2020)

> Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks
> from 4 May to 17 May 2020, an average of 137,000 people in England had the
> coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 85,000 to 208,000). This
> equates to 0.25% (95% confidence interval: 0.16% to 0.38%) of the population
> in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 14,599 people in
> 7,054 households.

Frustratingly they haven't said yet how many people in total they think have
ever had covid-19, but it's not going to be anywhere near 15million people in
the UK.

------
cfmcdonald
I can't help but wonder if there is a generational divide occurring in these
censorship debates. Some contributors to the discussion seem to believe that
everyone has a natural right to post a video and have it available to (if not
see by) a global audience. As someone who grew up in the 1980s this is a
strange point-of-view to me, but I can see how it might feel more natural to
someone who came of age in the 2010s.

~~~
AgentME
This is getting more into forums than platforms like YouTube, but I like how
the article "Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism"
([https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-
kept-...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-
die-by-pacifism)) describes this divide:

>Maybe it's because I grew up on the Internet in places where there was always
a sysop, and so I take for granted that whoever runs the server has certain
responsibilities. Maybe I understand on a gut level that the opposite of
censorship is not academia but 4chan (which probably still has mechanisms to
prevent spam). Maybe because I grew up in that wide open space where the
freedom that mattered was the freedom to choose a well-kept garden that you
liked and that liked you, as if you actually could find a country with good
laws. Maybe because I take it for granted that if you don't like the
archwizard, the thing to do is walk away (this did happen to me once, and I
did indeed just walk away).

I think many people coming to the internet nowadays have had their formative
internet experiences on large social media sites, where moderation is both
impersonal and rare, to the point that users don't bother understanding it
because it's unlikely to affect them, and then if it does affect them, the
reasons for it aren't understood and they feel singled out. When these people
hear someone talk about smaller better-moderated places, they can't understand
the appeal, as if it were proposed to them that a site would be better with
more boogeymen.

------
garyclarke27
Appalling behaviour by YouTube. Until recently I admired Google, no longer,
this kind of opinion based censorship (facts have yet to be established re
covid), makes my blood boil, Google must be urgently regulated to protect free
speech.

------
noelsusman
The video seems to be back up:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg).
Probably got caught up in some sort of automated COVID misinformation
algorithm. Given the content of the video, I'm not inclined to place much
weight on their side of the story here. This feels like fake outrage to drive
views.

~~~
bzb3
The video actually get removed, how is this "fake outrage"

------
throw7
If that video was "banned" on youtube, how am I able to view it on youtube?

The first few statements he makes are bit eye-raising and I didn't continue
listening but:

"many of the people who died would've died at the exact same time anyway"

I wonder the source or how he knows. He says it so matter of factly that I'm
sceptical.

------
Gravyness
This isn't the first time it happened nor will it be the last. Here in my
country (Brazil) they invited an actual toxicologist, professor and ambassador
of medical facility in São Paulo (since 2009) to speak live at CNN but when he
mentioned that there's an over-exageration in terms of deadlyness and started
putting actual data, studies and past examples in his speech, he was promptly
and unapologetically interupted, we can even hear someone say "cut" in the
broadcast, before the newswomans interupts him by saying, I kid you not, "We
cannot continue the interview because the doctor is not able to listen to
us..." all while the doctor was made silent by this statement. Makes me wonder
who makes these decisions.

~~~
Apaec
Do you have a link for further reading?

------
alterego2
Censorship kills. The whole COVID pandemic could arguably be avoided if China
haven't decided to silence another doctor who disagreed with the official
point of view.

------
ibejoeb
Susan Wojcicki has publicly stated over a month ago that the current policy is
to remove content that is not in line with WHO's positions.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-
ag...](https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-against-who-
guidance-2020-4)

------
ibigb
I used to get upset with untruths being published. But then I found that
humans are evolving and it is an individual evolution, not really a herd
evolution, and each individual must learn to discern what is true and what is
false. It is Life Course 110. Imagine what wimps humans would be if everything
were sanitized, there were no challenges. How would the human race grow
strong? Challenges are there to make you strong, one not easily manipulated by
Youtube, governments, religions, "experts" and so on. So stay awake, and see
if you are being manipulated. Would Life be useful if it didn't challenge you?
A certain amount of life's challenges are a blessing, too many
challenges...well we don't want that.

------
dboreham
It would be great to see peer-reviewed papers, or even raw data to support
these assertions.

------
gfxgirl
I tried to add that Japan's test on Favipiravir is showing no efficacy for
COVID. It's news all over Japan on May 20th. Wikipedia rejected the edit.
Google "Avigan" (the brand name for Favipiravir) in news and it will come up
but TPTB at wikipedia decided it was fake news and reverted the edit.

The article used to say "Japan to start trials of Favipiravir for treatment of
COVID-19". Changed to "Japan tests showing Favipiravir not effective against
COVID-19". Removed.

------
buboard
Among other things, social media facilitate exchanges between scientists.
Unherd has a series of very good interviews with various viewpoints on the
disease. Youtube should be ashamed

------
ThomPete
Youtube can do what they want but let's not forget that they use WHO as a
guideline for what is considered within the Overton window. WHO has repeatedly
been wrong on a number of occasions not the least mask, travel bans, and very
slow to call this a pandemic.

The is btw zero evidence that having fake prophets on youtube is endangering
public health and this is unfortunately an excuse for people who like to tell
others what to do, to pretend they are doing it for the public good.

------
biztos
Am I the only one bothered by people talking about “censorship” in this
context?

A private company chose to remove content from its service because it
considers that content to be bad, and probably in violation of its terms.

Did the government force it to do so?

Is somebody preventing the owner of the video from hosting it on their own web
site?

Censorship is a real thing in the world, and so is crying wolf.

~~~
s1artibartfast
There is censorship and government censorship. Both are real and people can
have valid opinions on both.

I like it when the government censors child pornography, but I don't like it
when they censor political speech.

I like it when corporations censors child pornography, not not when they
censor minority opinions on covid policy

~~~
biztos
Ok but then how are we to distinguish Corporate Censorship from Corporation
Chooses Not To Publish My Opinion?

If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from
much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count?

If it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to
publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to
publish on my universally accessible blog?

If it’s just that “not publishing what I want them to publish” counts as
censorship then (as per my first, unloved comment) I think it’s a perversion
of the term. Many places have real censorship, as in “publish this idea and
you go to jail.”

If I’ve got it wrong, please, enlighten me.

~~~
s1artibartfast
I agree that there is a blurry line between corporate censorship and corporate
choice. One way to draw a distinction is if the the corporation is typically
in the business of publishing opinions, and intentionally suppressing of a
specific idea to meet a goal or objective.

>If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from
much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count?

Censorship does not have to be universal. For example, some speech is banned
in churches but permissible in public.

>f it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to
publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to
publish on my universally accessible blog?

In your example. if the New York Times normally allowed the public to post
gallery reviews, but refused yours specifically because it fell into a
category they want to suppressed, this would be considered censorship.

>If it’s just that “not publishing what I want them to publish” counts as
censorship then (as per my first, unloved comment) I think it’s a perversion
of the term. Many places have real censorship, as in “publish this idea and
you go to jail.”

I agree that many places enforce censorship with severe punishments, but
punishment is not central to the idea of censorship. For example, an effort
could be made to destroy all evidence of Oscar Wilde's Homosexuality. This
would certainly be an act of censorship, even if Wilde is not harmed, or even
if those who resist are not punished.

>If I’ve got it wrong, please, enlighten me.

Wikipedia has a decent summary of different types of censorship if you scroll
past the political section [1]. Some examples of corporate, religious, and
self censorship. This utilization of the word is not new and consistent with
what I have said.

I think that the idea that censorship can only be imposed by a state under
threat of punishment is an inaccurate and restrive view. That said, if you
feel strongly that this is the wrong definition, you can just substitute the
word censor with suppress when whenever you read it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

~~~
biztos
Thanks, I will give this some thought and if appropriate modify my usage.

------
tupac_speedrap
We can't do anything about it though, Google will just shrug off the blame on
a dodgy algo and keep going.

~~~
rurban
dodgy yes, but it's a conventional blacklist that was leaked before.

what we can do is suing them. censorship became too popular recently.

------
xlc0212
Media can either be evil and censor information to potentially save life, or
respect freedom of speech which could lead to severe consequences. Which side
are you in? There is no correct answer and we just have to admit we are in a
bad situation which does not exist an win-win solution.

------
mrfusion
If nothing else it just makes it look like they’re hiding something and
encourages more interest.

------
nihonde
YouTube has been deleting the excellent MedCram series and then recommending
videos with titles like “China lied!” In my feed...because I subscribe to
MedCram.

------
swiley
Google’s entire business is pathological mass manipulation of what people
think for hire.

Using Google software and services is dangerous and irresponsible. De-platform
now!

------
throwaway52120
Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by
little.

Let no good catastrophe go to waste. With each, we lose a little freedom and
the populace resounds in joy. Not because they want less freedom, no, it's
because they think they've triumphed over a common evil: the dissenters. These
cycles always include labeling the enemy, and it's usually the ones who
disagree or challenge the state.

The common man isn't an expert in virology, world politics, or terrorism. Yet,
if you look at the ones upholding and defending the position of the state,
they're just laymen. Their opinions are fiercely held without question and
expertise.

All you have to do is label the enemy, make that label an adjective that the
average-person would reject at first glance (conspiracy theorist, extremist,
etc.), then assign that label to anyone who dissents from the state's
position. After that, it's just policymaking for the "greater good".

~~~
foolinaround
>Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by
little.

beautifully stated. Or the more common "boiling a frog slowly"

If we do not fight for our freedoms, our children will get used to the reduced
freedoms as a 'new normal' and it will only get more repressive

~~~
michaelmrose
Boiling a frog slowly is a sound argument against any form of heating even
while you are freezing to death.

Existing platforms could be misused by private actors in a way that negatively
effects the populace. Arguably most of the people presently concerned are
either a majority of bad actors or a minority of idealists concerned about
future potential.

To the worthy minority I would suggest that difficult to censor platforms are
probably trivially realizable in mid term especially if substantially
desirable or needed.

I don't think censorship by platforms like YouTube is being misused now and
the massive risk remains censorship by state actors. I suggest we in the short
term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy not less
while working on maturing decentralized options to the net benefit in the
short to mid term as a hedge against tyranny that will virtually certainly
primarily remain the province of state actors.

~~~
foolinaround
> the massive risk remains censorship by state actors

the state actors are to an extent, elected by the people. The big corporates
have no accountability.

> I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor
> more evil idiocy

You say that because in this narrow issue, you agree with youtube.

What is the short term?

Have you thought through all the consequences? and still, things will happen
that you have not accounted for. everyone is against evil or idiocy. The
question is who decides what is?

The media's propaganda can and is being used to brainwash the people, and the
results are clearly out for all to see.

~~~
michaelmrose
Find me something of import to society that is getting suppressed on platforms
like YouTube that is deleterious to society? If you say this doctor I will be
rather disappointed.

~~~
foolinaround
Ok, here is one.

PragerU got a whole bunch of videos blocked. One of them was about the 10
commandments. about 10 minutes long.

One of the commandments was 'Do not murder'

the reason youtube gave was that hate words were used. (I am paraphrasing).

you really should watch that video with a open mind, look at all the rap
videos that exist that talk about murder, violence etc, and make a case for
it.

\--

>"import to society"

Again, who decides what is important to society? To me, the pragerU series is
very important to my worldview, to you, it could be nonsense. Youtube is
clearly biased against it.

It is important for you to be able to seek out alternative view points.
Currently, these are being buried.

------
BFatts
There are several points that contradict the consensus opinion, at this time.
Such as the statement "More schools should reopen in June as ‘children are not
the transmitters of this virus’" is totally refuted at this point. There is
plenty of evidence that children transmit the disease like any other human.

~~~
nradov
The latest research indicates that younger children are not significant
transmitters of this virus. There is little scientific basis to support
keeping primary schools closed. The risk may be higher with older children.

[https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-
covid-19/children-a...](https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-
covid-19/children-and-covid-19)

------
ehsankia
tl;dr: There are millions of videos about COVID-19 being uploaded to Youtube
and they have a non-zero false-positive rate. This was accidentally removed
and promptly restored upon manual review. Basically nothing to see here.

~~~
ta17711771
> promptly restored upon manual review.

Promptly restored upon viral traction of outrage...just like that podcast app
was....

~~~
chrisco255
Exactly. What else aren't we hearing about that's being arbitrarily censored
by YouTube? And can we really trust it as a platform? I'm losing more trust in
Google every day. 10 years ago was "don't be evil." Now, they're just, "be
only as evil as you can get away with."

~~~
busymom0
The situation is very similar to what's happening with a lot of Android
developers. Many incidents where their app gets banned or removed for silly
things. One I remember was getting removed because they had the word "windows"
in their play store metadata and Google banned it because of having third
party platform name. Except the app was using the term "windows" in reference
to a house window, not the OS. Emailing play store support is pretty much
useless unless you are a big company or can generate enough viral outrage on
social media for them to notice.

~~~
thefounder
At least on Android you can sideload apps...that's not the case on iOS

~~~
busymom0
I develop apps for both iOS and Android. There's pros and cons to both. I
prefer developing for iOS as there's more money in it plus I enjoy the
platform more but if people want more customization, Android is definitely
better.

------
radiantmonk
Strange, the video link in the article is to YouTube. It plays fine for me.

------
jansan
I am currently watching the video on YouTube. How is it banned?

------
KCUOJJQJ
I hope YouTube only removes a little bit. It seems so to me. A lot of similar
information is still available.

Also, the videos that should be deleted before any others are the videos about
the claim that it's better to be too afraid than too little, for instance. If
people deliberately increase their fear, they become irrational like Francis
E. Dec, who believed in the "Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer
God". The difference is that Dec had no doubts, and didn't choose to ignore
doubts and to deliberately be afraid the most.

------
DSingularity
The virus is “getting tired” globally at the same time!? That sounds almost
mystical.

~~~
thomasahle
Wasn't that what people were predicting would happen in the summer since the
beginning? And then probably with a rebound in autumn/next winter.

~~~
kerkeslager
1\. No, people weren't predicting that the virus would "get tired".

2\. Even if we generously interpret this as meaning that the virus would be
less infectious in warmer weather, the only evidence we had pointed to this as
only a _possibility_ , rather than something we could predict.

3\. As summer has begun in the Northern hemisphere, we _still_ don't have any
good evidence that the virus is less infectious in warmer weather--certainly
not in the Southern US where the disease continues to spread unchecked.

~~~
dekhn
All predictions about seasonality were made using analogy to similar viruses
which have shown that sort of behavior. I am not aware of _any_ high quality
scientific evidence supporting seasonality (or nonseasonality). I think that
only really becomes available after several seasons; predictions aren't super
helpful here.

------
ppod
Is there any way if I can find out why my submission is flagged? The last
thing I submitted was also flagged (and then unflagged), but I have tried to
abide by the submission guidelines.

~~~
dang
The site guidelines ask you to email hn@ycombinator.com with questions like
this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things, but in this case I
suppose it might have been a combination of users who are fatigued by this
general topic having been repeated so frequently in recent weeks, and users
who agree with the decision to take down the interview and don't think HN
should have a thread about it. As I said, though—those are just guesses.

In the meantime, someone else reposted it and it was on the front page:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23258432](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23258432).
But since this post was first, I've turned off the flags on it and merged
those comments hither.

~~~
ppod
Thanks for the response, I misunderstood the flagging process.

------
lmilcin
(redacted voluntarily)

~~~
dang
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. Internet threads can't handle
denunciatory rhetoric without collapsing. It's the way the medium works, and
we have to consciously compensate for it, if we're going to keep curious
conversation going here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
lmilcin
I think flamewar is for when people will have polarized views on a particular
topic and the poster posts only to bring the people to fight each other.

My post is what I think a necessary reminder in a topic that I honestly don't
think is very polarizing. It just needs to be repeated, over, and over again.
The same way it gets taught to kids at school so they teach it to their kids,
and so on.

Because it is important.

Think about this: if something is taught to kids at school, how can you
justify objecting to it on HN (I mean unless it is a topic that is obviously
incorrectly taught, which I suppose this is not one of them)?

~~~
dang
This is a site for curiosity, and repetition and curiosity don't go together.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20repetition&sort=byDate&type=comment)

Multiply that 10x when the repetition is indignant or inflammatory.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20indig&sort=byDate&type=comment)

I doubt that you would want other commenters to drill you like a schoolchild,
but even if I'm wrong about that, please don't do it to others on this site.
We're trying for entirely the opposite sort of discussion. Basically, if it's
predictable, it is off topic here.

~~~
lmilcin
Ok. I think you are right.

~~~
dang
Appreciated!

------
kerkeslager
There are two separate issues here:

1\. Non-science: calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact
that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not
epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Sikora is also a
fellow of The Princes Foundation For Integrated Health and a professional
member of the generically-named College Of Medicine. Both of these
organizations are lobbyists which promote alternative medicine.

2\. Censorship: rather than allow conversation where real scientists can
respond to Sikora's nonsense with facts, YouTube decided to push his followers
into their own echo chambers where pieces like this which represents him as a
martyr go unchallenged.

Sakora isn't a martyr: he's either an insane person or an amoral profiteering
liar who doesn't care if his lies get people killed. But I don't think
censorship is the answer to lies. _Truth_ is the answer to lies.

~~~
gruglife
> calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an
> oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics,
> and he has no business speaking outside his field.

Then why is Bill Gates the de facto lead on curing covid?

~~~
kerkeslager
In a "determining what's true about Covid" sense, he isn't the leader on
Covid. He pays experts to take that leadership.

It's my general impression that if Gates says something about Covid, he's just
repeating what experts said.

~~~
ksk
Your own comment says "if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not
epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field."

Why doesn't that disqualify Bill Gates according to your own reasoning?

>It's my general impression that if Gates says something about Covid, he's
just repeating what experts said.

And who determines if he is or isn't repeating experts? Also, who decides who
is or isn't an expert? An advertising company? Sorry, but that is a scary
path.

~~~
kerkeslager
> Your own comment says "if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not
> epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field."

> Why doesn't that disqualify Bill Gates according to your own reasoning?

Because there's a big difference between presenting yourself as an expert and
saying things that disagree with experts, and repeating what experts say.

If Bill Gates starts spouting off stuff without evidence that disagrees with
what all the experts are saying, he'll absolutely be disqualified according to
my reasoning.

> And who determines if he is or isn't repeating experts? Also, who decides
> who is or isn't an expert? An advertising company? Sorry, but that is a
> scary path.

Well, everyone has to determine that for themselves, based on what limited
ability they have.

It seems like you think I'm one of the pro-censorship people here, but I
assure you I'm not, please follow the comment chain up to where I started it
and read my comment there. On the contrary, I believe Sikora's video should
have been left on YouTube, and responded to by experts.

------
alabaster_punt
Hardly surprising that a video full of dangerous misinformation has been
pulled. It would be worth reading about this particular professor on
Wikipedia, particularly his support for alternative medicine, his false claim
to have been a professor at Imperial college, and his claim that the UK's NHS
is "the last bastion of communism".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora)

~~~
DiffEq
So what is so dangerous about it? Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as
to what danger really is. I don't know these people that made the video and I
don't subscribe to magic crystals or whatever they are pushing/saying but I do
know what Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson from Imperial college created in his
flawed modeling - a world wide panic. That is what has been dangerous. Google
is a private company I suppose and they can do whatever they want but it would
be better to leave their videos up so they can be "peer reviewed" and mocked
if what they are saying is farcical. Just like we do with these ladies:
[https://youtu.be/B4s9GLWiUJM](https://youtu.be/B4s9GLWiUJM)

~~~
alabaster_punt
What's dangerous about it is that it's encouraging people to demand that their
government enact policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths.

Neil Ferguson's model was not flawed (at least, not in a significant way that
would invalidate its conclusions)

~~~
s9w
Oh boy I wouldn't be so sure after having a look at it on github.

~~~
alabaster_punt
If you have a specific reason to believe that the model resulted in an
incorrect conclusion, feel free to share it, instead of casting aspersions
with cryptic nothings.

~~~
DiffEq
The model said if we don't lock things down China-style millions will die. But
we see now from Sweden it was not true. See top graph:
[https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-c...](https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-
infographic-
datapack/?fbclid=IwAR0Poo2speciJx22TBoqLsD8TkKrKGNG4Uc3s7ukXVEZ_rT1s5oPkijr5GA)

Also Neil's other predictions have been completely wrong on the Swine Flu and
Bird flu. Why this "expert in his field" is still listened to is a mystery to
me.

~~~
Rebelgecko
If you're talking about that first graph on the page, I think that it is not
very helpful. Comparing total number of deaths can be misleading, especially
for small countries like Sweden. If my state had a Coronavirus death rate as
high as Sweden's 15,000 more people would be dead. Still not "millions", but
it wouldn't be an ideal outcome.

~~~
thebean11
Weren't his projections for deaths assuming we did a lockdown also much higher
than the actual numbers?

~~~
belltaco
Some other comment here said it was the other way around,they predicted 20k
deaths in the UK with a lockdown and the death toll is 36,000.

------
bilekas
This is where it doesn't matter. YouTube does not have an obligation to leave
everything up there at all.

Given that this interview is misleading at best, and dangerous at worst. It's
up to YouTube to decide if it wants to be used as a vehicle.

Personally I'm glad they took it down. I want to get out and would love to go
back to old normal. We all would. But I don't want to get sic before a vaccine
is ready, and I don't want people I know and love to get sick either.

If you're getting upset about the actions of youtube, the fact is they are
full within their rights to do whatever they like with their platform.

As for the free speech argument : Companies are not required to give space to
ideas or viewpoints they do not wish to be associated with.

[https://pacificlegal.org/a-first-amendment-win-supreme-
court...](https://pacificlegal.org/a-first-amendment-win-supreme-court-rules-
the-government-cant-control-private-speech/)

[https://casetext.com/case/manhattan-community-access-
corp-v-...](https://casetext.com/case/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-
halleck)

------
dpeterson
Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in
full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous.
Platforms like Youtube are beyond ubiquitous and we all depend on them. The
companies behind them have more money than countries. That, combined with the
tax free private foundations their founders nearly all have, is taking us down
some very bad roads. Of course, those roads are always paved with the best
intentions and for our own good. I think it is well past time government step
in and limit the power and control mega corporations flex on their platforms
and on our public policy in nearly all matters.

~~~
exolymph
> Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in
> full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous.

YouTube is not a monopoly. There are other websites where you can post or
watch video. Not as many people choose to use them, but you're not entitled to
their attention anyway.

~~~
theandrewbailey
Existence of competition doesn't stop courts from considering a company to be
a monopoly. You could have used a Mac and Netscape in the 90s, but the US went
after Microsoft anyway.

------
flowerlad
Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. Social media
has made it too easy to spread dangerous levels of misinformation and hate
online. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to YouTube,
but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization
purposes, adversarial nations were spreading fake news to influence who gets
elected, and others were even live-streaming mass murders.

This has caused an upheaval in societal mores as regards free speech. Enough
is enough! There needs to be limits. Communities started imposing limits to
free speech. For example, UC Berkeley, renowned for giving birth to the Free
Speech Movement, made news for banning harmful speech, such as that by Ann
Coulter. This is a natural evolution of societal mores. This particular
evolution was a reaction to the excesses and abuses seen in social media. This
type of censorship, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new
normal. We live in a new world. Malicious individuals and groups now have the
power to reach hundreds of millions instantly, at no cost to themselves. The
old rules no longer apply.

Some say if you disagree with someone else's speech you should not just ban
them, you should defeat them by arguing against their ideas. But when state-
sponsored actors spread fake news and divisive ads at a massive scale on
social media you can’t simply defeat them by arguing against their ideas. How
do you counter it? By buying opposing ads on Facebook? Even if you have
pockets as deep as Putin’s, what a waste of money that would be! This is a new
world and the old methods are no longer applicable. Communities and social
media companies will need to engage in some censorship.

------
atomashpolskiy
Lots of great points made in this thread. Question is, what can we do about it
as a collection of individuals? Hackers often like to pretend to be
apolitical, when faced with political issues. No wonder, escaping from the
turmoils of the real world in technology has always been a sweet sweet
delusion. Now the technology itself becomes an instrument of politics, and
there's no place left to hide.

------
downerending
Instead of pussyfooting around, it'd be nice if YouTube would just tell us
explicitly what we're supposed to think.

~~~
dlp211
You act like information isn't constantly being curated in all forms of
knowledge delivery. The same way we don't tolerate students attempting to
derail professors in class with unfounded hypothesis or flawed logical
arguments, Youtube doesn't have to tolerate the same on its platform.

Disclaimer: Work at Google, thoughts are my own.

~~~
downerending
There's a lot of difference between preventing a student shouting down a
professor in class with some crap argument and the college telling the student
they're not allowed to quietly discuss an "unfounded hypothesis" in some
corner with another student.

The beauty (theoretically) of platforms like YouTube is that we can watch what
we like and skip what we don't without harming any other user.

And as for qualifications, if an oncologist isn't qualified to have an opinion
on COVID-19, _YouTube_ sure as hell isn't.

