
YouTube Just Demonetized Anti-Vax Channels - minimaxir
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/youtube-just-demonetized-anti-vax-channels
======
Pharmakon
Smart, this should change the media narrative from their utter bollocks of
handling the comments thing. YouTube may be equal parts soulless and
incompetent, but their PR strategy isn’t terrible sometimes.

On the other hand, antivaxxing is one of those problems crying out to stamped
into the dust. I don’t particularly care if some decides to eat lots of fruit
instead of getting chemotherapy, because their cancer isn’t contagious.
Immunization though, is a matter of public health, and my patience for
precious fools on a mission is precisely 0 when it could hurt people I care
about.

Still... why the hell is this something we let YouTube decide? The problem
with antivaxxers isn’t their YouTube channels, it’s the fact that our
lawmakers are too cowardly to pass some laws around the issue. YouTube
shouldn’t be in a position to exert this kind of power, and this isn’t how
issues should be tackled. This doesn’t solve anything, it just obscures it. A
solution involves restricting access to public spaces for selfish morons who
don’t get vaccinated, and yes, their children.

Edit: Sorry I just realized that my comment is on the border of being little
more than a rant. Like a lot of people here I suspect that this is the
intersection of two issues I care about deeply; a big tech company’s
questionable, situational ethics and enormous power, and the horror of people
facing debilitation or death because of pseudoscience. I’m angry, I’m
frustrated, and while I know having the government intervene is fraught with
danger, it seems necessary especially in cases of public health.

~~~
colechristensen
The problem I see is what if there actually were a problem? Keep in mind I
solidly believe that there is not.

But there have been many drugs with serious side effects pulled from the
market some of them after regulators and drug companies behaving badly.

Is YouTube pulling them because of a sense of responsibility to open fair
scientific inquiry? Or are they doing it as a PR stunt to distract from other
bad behavior?

~~~
Felz
Case in point, vaccines can cause narcolepsy.

[https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-
flu.html)

They don't cause autism, but what if we set up mandatory vaccinations with
absolutely no opt-out because some parents were offensively wrong, and later a
vaccination does start causing serious problems and the government doesn't
move fast enough to change its rules?

~~~
olivermarks
We have a family friend whose young daughter developed serious issues with
autistic similarities after a vaccination.

This is not necessarily a topic to be 'stamped out', and free speech has to
transcend censorship, search engine companies hiding materials and
discouraging the creation of those materials.

~~~
reitanqild
> We have a family friend whose young daughter developed serious issues with
> autistic similarities after a vaccination.

Isn't that because those issues usually aren't visible before around that
time? (I am neither a GP nor a psycologist though so this is just trying to
apply common sense.)

I demand my kids gets all recommended vaccines. Because even if there was a
(vanishingly small) chance of a kid getting autism like symptoms I can live
better with that risk than the much bigger risk that that being unvaccinated
presents.

> This is not necessarily a topic to be 'stamped out', and free speech has to
> transcend censorship, search engine companies hiding materials and
> discouraging the creation of those materials.

Free speech is important. I would like to use mine to point out that looking
at some anti-vaxxers (I'm not singling out your relatives, they might very
well be reasonable people) one might get the idea that any autism in their
kids _might_ have simpler explanation than a vaccine that millions of other
kids take without issue every year ;-)

Edit: that last paragraph really feels bad. My point is I mostly do defend
peoples right to free speech (I might even pay close attention to people who
argue against AGW as long as they are trying to be honest and have a
discussion, not a sermon), but when it comes to vaccines it is actually pretty
much settled science that they save millions of lives, millions of hours of
suffering each year.

If anyone still wants to debate it, I might even listen carefully, but it
really helps a lot if the other part treat the subject with the respect it
deserves.

~~~
reitanqild
Sorry to everone for the comment above. It really wasn't good IMO :-/

------
JeremyMorgan
May not be a popular opinion but I'll share it anyway.

I believe anti-vaxxers are nuts. I believe they are dangerous. I believe
YouTube is a private company who can do what they want with their company.

So why does this leave a bad taste in my mouth? Because they have so much
power and influence and they can pull the plug on what could be called a
difference of opinion. Yes, it's a horrible opinion but it's still empowering
one side of an equation.

Yes, Youtube may be "right" about Anti-vaxxers, but what happens when they're
wrong? What happens when they decide to silence or stifle a group that's
actually trying to help the good of the people? It's a complex issue to say
the least.

~~~
goldenchrome
I would agree with you if this was a subjective matter. But it's not
subjective in the slightest. It's not an opinion. People who are anti-vax are
spreading incredibly dangerous lies and it's already starting to cause
outbreaks around the world. This is a clearcut case where people are dying
because of misinformation.

~~~
Guest10928391
What happens if YouTube demonetizes channels with people smoking or vaping,
because it's unhealthy, and encourages young people to take up the habit when
their favorite YouTubers are doing or recommending it? It's not subjective,
smoking is deadly, addictive, and it affects others in close proximity, so why
should someone be able to recommend their favorite vaping accessories and be
monetized?

I'm not saying YouTube made the right or wrong decision, but is it that much
of a stretch to go from demonetizing anti-vax channels to smoking or alcohol
channels, and if not, at what point do they stop?

~~~
idDriven
Hey no, don't drag vape into this. World Health Organization estimates are _at
least_ 95% less harmful than smoking. That's harm reduction. Don't get me
started on the studies that are skewed though, there are a ton of those. Like
other than no-name china e-juice you won't find manufacturers purposefully
adding diacetyl. Also you won't find users heating their coils to
900-degrees-F

------
Sohcahtoa82
ITT: People talking as if being demonetized is equivalent to being removed.

Anti-vax channels have not been deplatformed. They can still post their videos
on YouTube. They just can't profit from it anymore.

~~~
kodablah
ITT: people dismissing neutrality concerns and are using the specifics of the
non-neutral actions to derail from the general point about objectivity.

~~~
amaccuish
Are platforms like YouTube meant to be neutral? I never expected it to be. I
don't expect to find terrorist beheading videos on there.

I applaud YouTube for taking a _restrained_ but decent step to help this
crisis.

------
SubuSS
A question I have always wanted to hear the debates on:

Do we want corporate entities dictating/enforcing social rules OR

Do we want the elected government to be our moral compass and have
corporations abide by the same / help the government enforce the same?

~~~
tomschlick
If I had to choose... corporations. If you dont like what Youtube does you can
use another service. It's hard to go to another government though.

~~~
janpot
Ever heard of elections?

------
sethkravitz
I don't see the issue with demonetizing them. They are still free to post,
show up in search, free to trend, etc... All YouTube is saying is that it will
no longer pay them to spread dangerous misinformation.

------
yongjik
This is one of those rare cases when I want to say "Think of the children!"
because there are _actual dead children_.

No, your hypothetical concern of authoritarian government doesn't trump dead
children, because the slippery slope can go both ways. If we are okay with a
few kids dying because our freedom is so sacred, where do we stop?

Sounds silly? That's because slippery slopes are mostly silly. It's basically
a glorified straw-man.

~~~
tomp
Do you use the same argument to oppose abortion?

~~~
berbec
If you are of the opinion unborn children are children, you can. Not all
people subscribe to that belief.

This simple fact is why the pro-choice/life debates go nowhere. If you
disagree on this basic point of fact, no amount of discussion will change your
mind. If you believe fetuses (fetii?) are people, then abortion is murder. If
unborn are not people, it's a medical procedure between a doctor and a
patient.

------
Grue3
When will religious anti-science channels get demonetised? Creationism is just
as bad as anti-vax, except way more people believe in it.

------
not2b
Cool, now we need to work on Facebook. A couple of days ago I got a paid ad
from an antivax group, a particularly evil one because they pretend to be
medical experts: Physicians for Informed Consent. Their idea of "informed
consent" is a ton of misinformation that grossly exaggerate the risks and
understate the benefits of vaccines. They paid Facebook to show me the add. I
reported it; Facebook says they "understand" why I didn't like it but it
doesn't violate their guidelines.

------
karmakaze
How much better would the internet be if _all_ content was demonetized? Never
mind that we may not know how to make it sustainable for the moment. This
incident is just starting to show how click=$ and optimizing for $ fails. We
need alternative, truer motivations.

------
wrs
There's an interesting meta-twist here… YouTube is trying to prevent the
spread of dangerous "viral ideas" that enable the spread of dangerous physical
viruses. The ideas are arguably a part of this health crisis as much as the
viruses are. So this is a sort of "meme vaccination" to slow the spread of
those ideas.

Imagine if there were YouTube channels in the 19th century promoting the idea
that surgeons washing their hands causes surgical complications. What would be
the appropriate response?

~~~
crashedsnow
Is that really equivalent? Anti-vax arguments risk convincing someone to put
their children, and those around them in grave danger on the basis of
fundamentally flawed arguments that can be made to sound compelling. I don't
think the argument for hand washing ever met this criteria.

------
aurizon
Why have antivaxxers host 20 second pix in their videos of kids who died of
measles, mumps, chicken pox, polio, scarlet fever, whooping cough, diptheria
(one inserted at random by youtube - like ads) They do it for tobacco

------
tfha
This is overstepping.

Yes, anti-vax is not well founded, and yes, YouTube is a private entity that
can do what they want, but this tells me YouTube is willing to get involved to
push an agenda.

And that gives them a lot of political power.

~~~
thebluehawk
I disagree. I think their policy of reacting to content that is harmful and
dangerous is a good idea. It's not like the are censoring them. They are still
free to spout whatever nonsense they want, they just won't be monetarily
compensated for putting other people's lives at risk.

If someone made a cleaning video that encouraged users to mix bleach and
ammonia to make a super cleaning liquid, I don't think anyone would disagree
that it's harmful and dangerous.

~~~
lmilcin
The worry is why a service that is designed to show people-created content
should wield unlimited unilateral power to selectively decide what is going to
be shown and what is not. Why a company and not a judge can decide what is not
covered by freedom of speech? Can a large company just decide this because,
well, it is large?

I understand anti-vac people are seriously misguided and are posing threat to
others but has there been any ruling on this or Youtube just decided it
doesn't like it?

I am of the opinion that this needs a transparent process so that YOUR rights
are not stomped on when you are in minority. Say you we are transported back
200 years and you express an unpopular belief that black people should be made
free and allowed to vote (and women too!) Who is to decide you are not allowed
to even express your opinion because majority of the society thinks what you
say is complete bullshit (why, who's going to do all this work?)

~~~
lacksconfidence
They haven't decided that people can't see this content though. The content
that is already there is staying up, new anti-vax content can be uploaded and
will (likely, i can't know for sure i suppose) be suggested if you are
watching another anti-vax video. They have only demonitized the content,
deciding they wont pay money for anti-vax content.

~~~
lmilcin
Fair point. You are correct, they were not prevented from expressing their
opinion.

------
burger_moon
If I remember right a YT channel needs at least 4k subscribers now as of last
year change to qualify for monetization on your channel.

So I'm surprised there's channels big enough which are dedicated to this anti
vax thing to be monetized in the first place.

~~~
crashedsnow
I think it's 1k not 4k

[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851)

------
mycorrhizal
It seems crazy to me that we expect companies to tackle this problem. If you
don't vaccinate your children when there are no extenuating circumstance
([https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-
vacc.html](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html)). Then how
can this be seen as anything but neglect and child endangerment, which should
be handled by child protective services.

------
CM30
Oh hey, they actually did something decent for once. It doesn't help much with
their other recent mistakes (accidentally banning channels who used CP for
Pokemon GO/Club Penguin videos, demonetising videos/channels based on comment
content, outright telling a large channel they were disabling comments on
their videos at random, etc), but this anti vaccination conspiracy stuff
shouldn't really be a thing in 2019.

Then again, this is probably the one place in which my views on free speech
would come into conflict, since while I do feel people should be allowed to
say/write what they want for the most part, anti vax stuff is both
scientifically/factually wrong, dangerous to society and dubious all round.

------
xvilka
Should have just blocked these accounts on sight.

------
HeavenBanned
Good for them. This is a necessary Public Health intervention. Bioethicists
will look back on this and agree that it was necessary.

------
Proven
Can't say I noticed many ads of any kind (either pro or anti) on YouTube in
the past 2-3 years.

I demonetized all of YouTube a long time ago.

Whatever ads do play or recommended continent appears, I distrust them and
never click on it because as other comment said, they have an agenda.
ZeroCredTube.

Notice that antivax side doesn't have a "product" to sell while provax does.
Guess which one makes more money for The Evil Boys

~~~
icebraining
> Notice that antivax side doesn't have a "product" to sell

That's simply not true; the channels they demonetized like iHealthTube and
LarryCook333 do sell products (both their own and others') - usually
"naturopathic" books, treatments, etc. Some of these can be quite expensive.

------
alexandernst
I'm actually OK with that. Those people are endangering themselves and the
ones that can't get vaccines because of several medical conditions.

------
halfjoking
Wow this thread has the most heated arguments I've seen on this site.

My feeling is that since this is HackerNews, instead of arguing about
censorship of idiots... let's instead build a startup to solve this.

It seems anti-vaxxers main concern is that vaccines are unsafe due to
preservatives. Why doesn't someone make a startup that has "freshly killed
virus" that charges $10k per vaccine? Do you know how much money you could
make from celebrities advocating these preservative-free vaccines? People
would sell their homes just to get these "safe" vaccines from the startup.

It's a win-win-win solution... someone gets rich, the idiots do whatever it
takes to get vaccinated or they get put in jail (let's jail them for child-
abuse if they don't vaccinate), and we still have herd-immunity in society. So
common HN, someone has to have the capital to get this started. Let's solve
this.

------
throwaway3449
This is definitely a free speech/democracy issue. Why nobody discusses the
facts instead:

\- no vaccine was/is ever tested against inert placebo in clinical trial. How
the hell can we let manufacturers get away with this?

\- majority of (media) cited epidemiological studies around safety are just
(very) bad

\- so as a result we have here following situation: people claiming to be
injured (also killed) by untested and massively deployed product (that also
saves lives, yes) and we have no data to calculate the benefit/risk ratio.
Instead we just vilify them.

I can understand how/why (majority of) scientific community maintains the old
reductionist paradigm. But how this can stay out of scope of investigative
media is beyond me. (edit: formatting/grammar)

