Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation (foxnews.com)
483 points by mrfusion 46 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 704 comments

You want to see worse? Youtube has shadowbanned this song from search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_F_XQrukM

Search "Let's go brandon" and it should be the number 1 result, it's #23 on trending for music still, it was #1, and it peaked at #1 on itunes hiphop charts for US. But you don't get it unless you search for "let's go brandon song", which makes me think somebody messed with it.

Youtube instantly demonetized, put behind triple community warnings, and removed from search the video "The CIA is a Terrorist Organization" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI ) which was sourced only from things the CIA / US Government have formally admitted on the record as having done in the past.

Videos like this are only accessible in some countries if you provide YouTube with a government ID. In my country YouTube blocks a number of videos from public broadcasters this way.

Let me introduce a temporary workaround to you https://www.youtubeNSFW.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI

Those kinds of sites don't work. There are no operative workarounds as far as I know.

It used to be that youtube-dl worked, but on that CIA video I now get:

  [youtube] _2khAmMTAjI: Downloading webpage
  [youtube] _2khAmMTAjI: Refetching age-gated info webpage
  WARNING: unable to download video info webpage: HTTP Error 410: Gone
  ERROR: Sign in to confirm your age
  This video may be inappropriate for some users.

The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

Was it really "the community" though?

Anyway, that video doesn't seem very out there at all to me. That the CIA has committed various things most reasonable people would classify as "crimes" and "terrorism" seems like common knowledge to me.

Have you tried the YTBypass, 'youtubensfw' redirect? At first, the video won't load, but there is a notice to 'click this if the site won't load.' which brings up the video. It becomes possible to download the video then, although it is very slow.

There’s no major conspiracy here other than YouTube becoming increasingly hostile to the open web.

I would put money on Rumble becoming a major force in social media over the next ten years. It feels more like early YouTube than YouTube itself has felt for a long time.

Why not PeerTube? It is gaining a lot more of momentum by interoperating with the rest of the fediverse.

Yt-dlp implemented a work-around that seems to work for now.

Even Wikipedia engages in strategic censorship on behalf of the three letter agencies.

Case in point: this article[0] was removed from Wikipedia without good reasoning. It would seem that the name of the article itself was inflammatory enough to the powers that be.

[0] https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/List_of_authoritarian_re...

> the name of the article itself was inflammatory enough to the powers that be

There's a discussion of why it was deleted here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

Primarily because 'this "list" is inherently subjective and constitutes [synthesised conclusions]'; you'll also note on that page that "List of authoritarian regimes supported by the Soviet Union or Russia" was deleted at the same time - was that also at the behest of the US "powers that be"?

When I search for "Let's go brandon" (no quotes), it is number four in the search results... but with quotes, with or without apostrophe, I'm not sure because I don't see it... went down about 100 results...

yesterday I too had it as a front page result. Now it is a large number of pages down.

Censorbeast hit again.

For those who think this isn’t political, check out what they posted on the POTUS Twitter the day before


The goal of this is to reclaim “let’s go Brandon” and it’s obvious.

EDIT: for those who don’t know what “Let’s go Brandon” means, a child comment linked to a 40 second video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ8asiDn2_A&feature=youtu.be

For those who don’t watch or attend sport events — this happens at many of the events lately.

Boris Johnson actually did something similar.

Iirc, he gave an interview where he bizarrely and repeatedly mentioned the fact that he likes to paint wine boxes like buses...over and over. And it was thought (and, most likely, leaked) that he was doing this so that when people Googled "Boris bus" it would come up with this story, and not the story about the infamous "Brexit bus" (it also leaked that it was Lynton Crosby, a well-known political campaign manager, that suggested this...which does support the claim that it isn't total bs).

Or Rees-Mogg „lying“ in parliament.

What's this refer to?

When Google/YouTube/Twitter/Reddit and the rest undertake censorship that is clearly political, it should be treated as an in-kind political contribution. I don’t see why these actions are exempt from laws around campaign financing and election controls.

Leaving that aside this is yet another clear example of the power big tech wields over society and how they will abuse it due to their internal biases. We need renewed antitrust legislation (+ enforcement) to break up these companies, regulation to treat social media/Internet infrastructure as common carriers/public utilities, and the inclusion of political identity as a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.

We also shouldn’t exempt private organizations from upholding core American values like free speech. The largest platforms are as powerful as the government, and given they are under threat of legislative action on various issues and the current administration admitted to being in contact with tech companies regarding “problematic” content, it is also clear that an abusive party or administration can essentially outsource government-driven censorship to overly powerful private entities.

This is a fascinating tweet on many levels.

1) I think it's safe to assume that Joe Biden has no SEO expertise, which means that someone with the power to send the President of the United States out for a photo op does. They went out and found someone named Brandon for Biden to pose for a photo op with.

2) To me it's terrifying that Presidential actions are now being dictated by SEO concerns, but it is interesting.

3) I would have expected this kind of thing from Trump, since he was obsessed with his public image. But apparently Biden, or at least someone close to him, is similarly obsessed.

4) Reading between the lines, the fact they responded in this way makes it appear that the administration is becoming concerned with the the growing anti-Biden sentiment that has arisen in the wake of the Afghanistan debacle and issues with cognitive decline that are becoming increasingly harder to hide. That town hall was a disaster [1].

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-town-hall-strange-moments...

Anyone who thinks or thought before the election Joe Biden is going to be the one running the country as a president they were naive to say the least. The only reason Democratic Party had to throw Joe Biden to everyone’s face was he was the only electable candidate they had left as the mouthpiece of the establishment. Pete was the other one out of the 15 candidates they had, but then his sexual orientation wasn’t going to fly well in mid America.

Joe Biden doesn’t run the country. DC Establishment does. It always has. The very same thing they accuse others of such as causing big tech monopolies, wealth inequality, climate change etc, the same establishment protects those interests all.

He was the most backed candidate by the Wall St. for a reason. Enough said.

We were duped! I fell for it!

News straight up lied to control the 2020 election narrative and outcome. We have watched an unprecedented fast fall into authoritarianism. Major networks are all but complete propaganda departments. Biden criticism was swept under the rug to protect him all the while the media held no punches for his opposition. Rational nuanced discussion of pandemic and related policies were off the table and we were just dictated mandates. People didn't vote for this. Our country has stumbled from one self inflicted crisis to the next as the coverage of the failures goes either unreported or censored. Kneejerk mistruths drive doomed to fail federal policy ( border control horse whips!)

This administration is so unbelievably incompetent.

People are rightly angry as hell. This discontent isn't limited to specific groups. It includes: Blacks, whites, lefts, rights, zoomer, boomer. It's not a small group either.

"Let's go Brandon" is being shouted across the country.

We should listen. We should ask why.

We were told successes were failures.

Now where told failures were successes.

People don't like being lied to or ignored.

"Let's go Brandon!"

It's understandable you fell for it. Good on you for admitting it. It takes a strong mind to change their mind

> To me it's terrifying that Presidential actions are now being dictated by SEO concerns, but it is interesting.

Does this really surprise you?

- The opposing parties leadership is censored more than every authoritarian around the world.

- stories about Biden’s son is censored

- bad stories about Biden are censored

- every person connected to the opposing party is being “investigated”

- the DOJ literally sent out a statement saying they were going to investigate parents going to school boards as “domestic terrorists” (at worst, these are local crimes, if at all)

- anyone who has claimed election interference on the 2020 election has been threatened with lawsuits, lost jobs, etc

- a majority of the opposition media figures are censored

- no one could attend the inauguration even

What does this all have in common? They want the opposition to have no voice and theirs to be the only one you see. They try to intimidate and censor such that they have the only voice. “Let’s go Brandon” was too hard to censor, so they’re now doing this. Remove, rewrite, repeat

The reason I say that is now opposition content is removed, they can put out their content.

I'd like to see evidence for a lot of these claims that come from reliable sources cause I don't think the majority of them are true.

> - anyone who has claimed election interference on the 2020 election has been threatened with lawsuits, lost jobs, etc

I feel this is an especially interesting claim because the only people i've seen get hit with law suits for this have continually defamed specific companies and not just someone shouting in the street that it was fraudulent.

I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that the Hunter Biden stories weren't suppressed until after the election. Those stories and corresponding evidence were around before the election. They were completely buried wherever possible, and dismissed as conspiracy theories by the mainstream media when they couldn't bury them. It was only after the election that they were forced to admit that the Hunter Biden stories were factual.

Forced to admit that what Hunter Biden stories were factual?

And did any of those stories relate to Joe Biden?

They share a bank account, Joe had an “office” at the failed business Hunter tried to start, and in his emails – if true, as at least some of them have been cryptographically verified to be – Hunter claims he sends a percent of all his income to his dad, a credible claim given the eye-witness corroboration of a similar communique between financial partners affirming an equity stake in a Chinese venture of “10% for the big guy” – who an eye witness identifies as none other than the incorruptible Scranton Joe himself.

Can you provide a link to any of those stories from before the election? I can't find anything about the bank account earlier than Oct 12th.

I don't see how that could have been "suppressed" if it only came out very recently.

Everything in my comment except the shared bank account was reported before the election, with much of the specific content being suppressed or outright banned from multiple social media networks as part of coordinated enforcement action. The New York Post, a centuries-old newspaper that broke the story, was suspended from Twitter for multiple weeks due specifically to this reporting. Twitter could be forgiven for acting according to its “hacked materials policy” meant to protect innocent doxing victims like Hunter Biden, except for the fact that just weeks earlier they featured tweets from the New York Times that published illegally obtained private tax documents of the president (who was also later banned from Twitter).

I’m skeptical of the argument that recent vindication of a suppressed story somehow justifies its original suppression.

Bank account reporting:


The senate report has interesting stuff


There’s also that time biden got the prosecutor investigating burisma fired (by withholding funds).


Seems an awful like what Trump was impeached for...

You clearly didn't read my comment. I specifically pointed out that the bank account story couldn't have been suppressed because it only came out recently.

I want you to repeat those words to yourself out loud: "the bank account story couldn't have been suppressed because it only came out recently"

Do it twice. It's okay, we'll wait.

There’s more evidence now, but in October 2020 you had these same emails released. The entire drive was available for anyone to download.

Further, an associate of the Biden family confirmed all the emails were real and he told the family not to take Chinese money.


Does stories about Joe Biden's son relate to Joe Biden? Are you shitting us?

Stories about Trumps children trend for weeks if there's anything negative... they don't get suppressed, questioned or challenged.

Hunter is accused of being a Crack Addict, a pedophile, selling influence, etc... each enough to sit in the media for weeks and it's all swept under the rug.

Trump supposedly says shithole and it's a national emergency... Biden supposedly gets a cut from his son's business dealings in China/Russia/etc and it's nothing.

How does Hunter relate to Joe? are you fucking serious?

> Trump supposedly says shithole and it's a national emergency... Biden supposedly gets a cut from his son's business dealings in China/Russia/etc and it's nothing.

The WSJ investigated that story at the time and said that there wasn't sufficient evidence. If you have issues, you should blame the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partn...

Note the following quote "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden"

If the right leaning WSJ isn't willing to support a story like this, why do you think it's true?

"There wasn't sufficient evidence"

likewise, the laptop story was stopped because "its russian disinformation" even though 1) it never was and 2) those reasons never stop bad stories about Trump and family.

The main point of my post is that rumors sit in the new for months on Trump & crew... but "Journalists" suddenly care about "evidence" when it comes to Biden and Democrats?

"Media" is suppressing bad "rumors" about Biden and running rumors about Trump without issue. THAT is the issue and if you don't see the hypocrisy then you're part of the problem.

And right leaning?

Center: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-med...

Rudy sat there in an interview on TV claiming that he had one of Biden's Macbooks in his physical possession and proudly displayed it to TV cameras.

It was a Windows-based LG machine. I can totally see how a 70 year old grifter wouldn't want to spend the money on the correct prop for the media.

Somehow, I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that a guy with sensitive material on laptops worth literal millions is just going to drop off multiple machines and never pick them up.... and that a Mac repair guy isn't smart enough to identify what is and what is not a Macbook.

Maybe the reason nobody believes Trump or his henchmen is because they lie so much. Stranger things have happened. As it is, all evidence about this entire ordeal points towards Trump's team trying to Benghazi Biden. Biden wanted a corrupt prosecutor out of power for the same reason that virtually every other leader of the western world did: dude was corrupt.

You focus on "grifters" from the right and endorse grifters from the left by ignoring their scandals and the rumors about their grifting.

You don't like Rudy? Okay... now... why are you silent about Hunter? Joe? other stories about their corruption?

Why do you accept at face value rumors about the right - when many of those rumors turn out to be false or their "lies" turn out to be true? and then you'll support "biden wants" despite the fact that he's every bit the corrupt grifter you claim to despise in Rudy?

"all the evidence" This is about rumors and support/suppression of those rumors.

Again... rumors about Trump spend weeks in the news without facts - or against facts... journalists care about "all evidence" with Biden when that evidence has been proven lies time and time again.

If you support the hypocrisy, then you're a hypocrite. You'll push rumors against Trump and hide rumors against Biden because you don't care about truth.

> rumors sit in the new for months on Trump

It's much worse than that.

Virtually all news stories in 2020/early 2021 about Trump have been retracted by cnn.com since then.

Almost all sound bytes from the White House and Squad today are the opposite of what they said pre-election, especially about corona - they said they would refuse a vaccine developed under the Trump administration, and that vaccine mandates were not going to happen.

The most striking is that "Trump's Muslim travel ban list" was originally drawn up by the previous Obama administration. (The list was created because there's several countries that have disorganized passport control, so ICE can't verify any of those documents when required, which means they don't know who is trying to enter the US, when that mattered. With Open Borders, those people can now just walk across the Mexico border.)

Joe Biden (via Hunter) was/is literally doing the thing they tried to impeach Trump over.

I'd say that's related!

Which thing? Not the two things he was impeached for. Possibly closer to the circulated idea about impeaching due to having better foreign interests, but I don’t believe any formal impeachment attempt was made on those grounds. All talk.

My hot take: Probably because every politician likely does it. They wouldn’t want to set any ball rolling that could hurt them in the future.

Joe Biden / Hunter Biden is doing what exactly?

What is your concern? Nepotism? Do you have any such concern for the conduct of the children of the previous president?

HN is not the place for this. Save this for reddit or facebook.

Surely it's selling presidential favours? The whole Hunter art work stuff is ridiculously dubious...

And yes, equal concern for any president. Trump largely cared mostly about stuffing his pockets full of money.

"trump largely cared" and biden gets a cut from his family making millions on his name while he destroys America.. how is he not about "stuffing his pockets"?

I missed the part where America got destroyed by this. Could you clue me in?

    * Afghanistan pull out: Disaster. Many Americans STILL trapped in Afghanistan while Biden looks like cornholio on national TV

    * 100+ days of crisis at the border. No law and order. No enforcement of law. Massive crisis that didn't exist on Jan 5th.

    * Massive inflation under way. Unseen failure from the top

    * Supply chain collapsing by corruption, shit laws and mandates

    * Fauci has been undeniably shown the liar we all knew he was before. Corrupt POS with funding lies and experimentation on animals.

    * FBI ignores violence across America and instead goes after "domestic terrorists"... aka parents who don't blindly obey the gestapo tactics.
I could go on about the number of scandals, corruption and dumpster fire issues... but the collapsing poll numbers and cries of Lets Go Brandon speak it more than I ever could.

And I didn't say America was destroyed... I said Biden was in the process of destroying - and the above scandals as a starting point... they show an inept or corrupt plan that is in effect destroying America as we speak.

Lets Go Brandon.

Let's calm down, m'kay?

First and foremost, there's a reason why political discussion is not welcomed here, as it gets ugly really fast.

You made a simple point and I wanted to clarify it:

> biden gets a cut from his family making millions on his name

I'm not aware how Biden Sr. is cashing in on his son's "work". Please note that I'm not contesting the fact that his son's role was some degree of corruption, but I haven't seen compelling evidence that the money was flowing back to his dad.

Please stay on topic.

"stay on topic" first it's "I missed America being destroyed" now it's "biden gets a cut?"

Hard to stay on topic with you moving the goal posts...

Can we get an itinerary so I know where the goal posts are going to be? That way we can try to synchronize what "on topic is" since it apparently changes from one post to the next with you...

My take on the Hunter Biden affair -- low level, old school, genteel corruption. Akin to the corruption that political "donations" bring.

Disclaimer, I voted for Biden but am willing to call out his failures at any time.

The reason why I'm ok with "censoring" the Hunter stories at that time is that it was purely whataboutism and a distraction. Just like with the buttery males, it was never about the professed concerns, it was about making them look bad.

If this issue (and others like it) could be discussed in a non partisan way I'd be all for it, but it's not. This hand wringing is insincere at best and should be ignored.

I've yet to see anything that indicates these concerned citizens care about principles rather than tribal politics. Happy to be proven wrong, but not holding my breath.

The whole central claim that started this was the allegations that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating the company that was paying Hunter for his "services". If it's true that foreign interests were bribing the vice president of the USA though payments to his son in order to change American policy then that is indeed a staggering level of corruption. For comparison the president of South Korea was sentenced to 20 years in prison for a comparable scheme.

Yes, that was claimed. It's been thoroughly disputed. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fac...

Even if there was truth to it (I do think a genteel corruption was in play but not to this extent), these arguments are being made in bad faith. There's no concern for actual corruption as they don't seem to care when it happens in any other context -- it's just "gotcha" politics.

US foreign policy in its very nature is corrupt (it's the lobbying arm of big business). Let's shine a light on it but that light needs to be colorblind to red and blue.

Without recognition of the corruption of the previous administration this dialog is simply partisan pandering. I'd be more than happy to share my criticisms for the administration and its party (including this aforementioned corruption) but if your concern does not cross party lines then it's no concern of mine.

>that was claimed. It's been thoroughly disputed.

And you will always find news articles telling you not to believe your lying eyes. Sadly most Americans have grown a default assumption that the media is lying to you, which at least in this case is true. Reading the first hand emails gives a very different impression.

"The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine in November aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support on Nikolay’s issue to the Ukrainian top officials above with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [Burisma founder] in Ukraine."


It's very difficult to read that email and not come to the conclusion that Hunter was being paid to ask his dad to shut down the investigation into Burisma. Especially since later emails indicate that Joe Biden ultimately did meet with Burisma execs.

>but if your concern does not cross party lines then it's no concern of mine.

Make no mistakes I would love to see any elected official that engages in corruption -- Republican or Democrat -- dragged to prison.

While there are a large number of who are just using this to play political gotcha, it is going too far to accuse anyone concerned about this scandal.

The whole point of this had nothing to do with rooting out corruption -- it was to discredit Biden as a candidate. This was Benghazi v2 (or higher).

I am among those that see another Trump presidency as an existential threat and am willing to look the other way if it helps prevent that.

As long as the political climate remains as it is I don't feel I have any other choice.

> the allegations that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating the company that was paying Hunter for his "services"

The fact checking suggests an entirely different interpretation - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact...

Not least that everyone wanted Shokin out. And this is before you get to Shokin investigating Burisma re: the years 2010-12; i.e. before Hunter Biden even joined the company. Also Shokin's Burisma probe was in 2014; the international pressure to oust Shokin was in 2016.

It all just falls apart under the barest fact check. C'mon.

Agreed. But Hunter's only qualification for his role was who his dad was. It smells funny to me.

What gets conveniently overlooked by those pushing this story is the fact that the only interest was in the story itself, as an attack angle. To hell with that.

>I'd like to see evidence for a lot of these claims that come from reliable sources cause I don't think the majority of them are true.

This is effectively a disingenuous argument when the evidence clearly suggests that so called "reliable sources" are colluding to suppress content that is inconvenient for their political leanings.

Incidentally it also ensures that all of wikipedia leans left, since any outlets which run counter to leftist politics are rejected as unreliable by definition. It's a dishonest, preemptive dismissal of any alternative perspective and it is absolutely toxic to national discourse. In practice you are relying on a circular argument, wherein the self proclaimed arbiters of truth have also defined themselves, and only themselves, as "reliable sources".

The reason I say reliable is not because I only want sources from one specific side or that say one specific thing. But because there are plenty of sources who are willing to say anything to please a specific party or person which is the exact reason some people are being sued into the ground.

That’s literally what you were just accused of doing. Demanding a source that supports your claim by negating his. The left controls the internet, and has for a while. Hence the right starts new sites where the left doesn’t have control.

The right seems to generally start news sites that peddle in a lot of either half truths or outright falsities. Given this can you blame me for wanting a _reliable_ source.

And guess what the right views the left sites as having? Two sides to the coin.

Yeah but the difference is the mainstream republicans regularly push literal disinformation and false hoods to further the goal of the republican party and themselves. You just need to look at the last administrations attempt to literally subvert the election process and install themselves as president when they lost.

Gonna repeat my same statement. You’ll figure it out eventually, I promise.

What evidence suggests that the entire party is being investigated? Who is hiding that?

"Glenn Greenwald quits The Intercept over ‘censorship’ of Hunter Biden article " https://nypost.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-quits-the-inte...

"Glenn Greenwald Says CIA Duped Media About Hunter Biden Story " https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/glenn-greenwald-says...

It's only surprising in that they have, to this point, largely shrugged off criticism. Jenn Psaki, for example, has been extremely dismissive of any criticism whatsoever. Now, I think they are realizing that the (white)house is on fire, and it appears that they feel like they have to respond and cannot dismiss/gaslight their way out of it.

So your concern is nepotism, right? Or is it tribal politics?

This is gross. It's gross because you're right, there are a lot of things that politcians get a pass on. That's not okay.

But you are making ridiculous absurd statements. No, not everyone in the other part is getting investigated. No, not anyone who claimed interference is getting threatened. How would that be possible if up until the last week (and going well into the future), we're discussing this stuff?

This absurd hyperbole ruins whatever valid points you have because you look like the kind of commenter that HN was supposedly above, but for some reason dang decided to bump this explicitly political bs (with the expected political comments) to the front page. We didn't even try to get a better source than fox news?

If you care about this stuff (and you should), you need to disconnect it from political stuff. You're jumping in bed with people that lie.

> You're jumping in bed with people that lie.

Not the OC, but this is quite the claim considering you're doing exactly the same thing

Is the full video of that town hall meeting available anywhere?


Oddly, it’s pretty well hidden in search, while other, older town halls came right up. I had to select a number of specific options in YouTube’s search just to find it.

thanks a lot, not sure why they are trying to hide this one, it isn't that bad... even if most of his answers use scripted answers that are only a bit related to the question.

Last year I had a similar experience searching for CNN's interview with Biden and Harris. In that case, I cound only find CNN Brasil's release of the full interview (with Portuguese spoken over it). Some of what he says is embarrassing, but those parts are difficult to find on YouTube.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epjmkbGerqw

Yes, it’s worth noting that this town hall was also a CNN affair, and the only full video I was able to find was not posted by them. It’s on some other random channel. Someone at CNN and/or YouTube decided this was bury worthy.

> 3) I would have expected this kind of thing from Trump, since he was obsessed with his public image. But apparently Biden, or at least someone close to him, is similarly obsessed.

This is all they’re concerned about. Both the left and the right. They hire groups of people specifically to manage their public image. This is why MSM didn’t want negative coverage of Biden during the race.

The 'reclaim' phenomenon is fascinating. I presume all politicians do this, well, all who have staff sophisticated enough to grok SEO and respond within a few days to unfavourable trending topics.

Would be interested to know other examples of prominent politicians doing this. I'm pretty sure I recall a British politician doing this a year or two ago. I can't remember exactly who it was or what it was about, but I recall it seemed very obvious what was going on - moreso than this Biden/Brandon instance.

The 'reclaim' phenomenon is quite old, and it has happened quite often in politics that a party or politician has defused a pejorative or satirical label by embracing it. The elephant and donkey mascots of the two main parties in the USA were originally used to lampoon them.

Reclaim “let’s go Brandon” from what, exactly? Never heard the phrase until now. I googled it and all I got was a shoddily written Fox News article that didn’t link to the alleged source interview, claiming it was a huge internet meme now.

I hadn't actually heard of it either, from one of the first results:

> This whole thing got started earlier this month, at the Talladega Superspeedway. Brandon Brown had just won a NASCAR race. And sportscaster Kelli Stavast at one point commented during an interview with Brown afterward how the crowd seemed to be chanting in his honor: ‘Let’s go, Brandon!”

>Unfortunately, that’s not actually what they were chanting. Not even close. The crowd was very clearly addressing President Biden, not Brandon. Only, with an f-bomb in front of his name instead of “Let’s go!”

Video: https://youtu.be/kQ8asiDn2_A

Source: https://bgr.com/politics/lets-go-brandon-the-backstory-of-th...

At 0:13 on your video, the crowd is clearly saying "fuck Joe Biden". So this video is explicitly political, given that its name is a dogwhistle for "fuck Joe Biden".

I know it's too late to save the word "dogwhistling" from losing all meaning, but can you at least try to use it correctly?

"Dogwhistling" doesn't mean "saying something that means something else", it means using coded or indirect language to communicate something to a specific group of people while hoping that the general audience doesn't pick up on your meaning. Everybody knows what "let's go Brandon" is code for, and the people who say it aren't trying to hide what they really mean.

Its a conservative meme stemming from a nascar race where the crowd was chanting "Fuck Joe Biden" and a reporter stated the crowd was chanting "Let's go Brandon". It's now conservative slang for "Fuck Joe Biden"

Thank you for the straightforward explanation.

The video has the lines "pandemic ain't real, they planned it". That's called disinformation, and it was removed as such.

I am reminded of a quote I just ran into from the Canadian Supreme Court on free speech in R v. Zundel. Setting aside any legal questions, I found it interesting for its emphasis on the potential expressive value to disinformation.

> The first difficulty results from the premise that deliberate lies can never have value. Exaggeration -- even clear falsification -- may arguably serve useful social purposes linked to the values underlying freedom of expression. A person fighting cruelty against animals may knowingly cite false statistics in pursuit of his or her beliefs and with the purpose of communicating a more fundamental message, e.g., `cruelty to animals is increasing and must be stopped'. A doctor, in order to persuade people to be inoculated against a burgeoning epidemic, may exaggerate the number or geographical location of persons potentially infected with the virus. An artist, for artistic purposes, may make a statement that a particular society considers both an assertion of fact and a manifestly deliberate lie; consider the case of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, viewed by many Muslim societies as perpetrating deliberate lies against the Prophet.

Half the songs out there contain disinformation. Is YouTube going to get rid of them all?

Medical disinformation? Because the typical music industry schtick of lying about how much money you have or how often you get laid probably isn't quite as bad as that one.

Listen to Eminem from the early 00s.

And what’s so bad about medical misinformation vs say talking about murdering people? This is a rabbit hole and the left is gleefully throwing us down it.

> And what’s so bad about medical misinformation vs say talking about murdering people?

Predominantly that I'm not aware of a huge number of people who listened to Stan and then committed a murder suicide, but I'm aware of a staggering number of people who watched some absolute moron's YouTube video about COVID-19 and then decided to ingest horse dewormer.

I'm not sure how much of this difference is because music is performative (a song about murders is not typically trying to convince its listeners to commit murders), or how much of it is just because the demographic watching conspiratorial YouTube videos are way more gullible than people listening to Eminem songs, but it's pretty clear that medical disinformation is causing a huge amount of harm, and it's not at all clear that this is the case for songs with aggressive lyrics.

Yeah not even close. This has real repercussions, especially to the people that need herd immunity to reenter society, like the immune comprised.

So now everybody has to change speech for a very very small minority?

Yes, if you lean politically hard left in the USA. This has already become a political talking point for transgender people, and all censorship is good censorship under those claims.

No, if you're simply liberal or conservative in the USA. They generally think that speech should be uncensored until it's directly causing legitimate violence (e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening death).

Speech? No, that's free. We're talking about hurting people by not getting vaccinated.

YouTube is a private company. Them censoring someone is not an infringement on free speech.

You’re hiding behind legality. The spirit of free speech is most definitely damaged.

Lots of songs tell me cannabis is harmless even if you smoke it all day every day.

Do you infect other innocent people with your cannabis addiction by breathing on them?

Do you give people COVID by listening to a song?

Yes, all the ones that contain statements about the pandemic being manufactured.

This is a precipitous road due to conflation. Are we talking about the pandemic as a social phenomenon, or as a spread of a virus?

It's evident that there's been political gain on the matter, which is a "manufactured" social phenomenon, but it's obvious that there's a physically propagating coronavirus that mutates and spreads via airborne transmission.

Unfortunately, I've seen people vacillate back-and-forth on the two depending on what they're trying to assert.

What does the president speaking to a boy named Brandon have to do with some lowbrow political chant? You're claiming all boys named Brandon are off limits now?

I'm very aware this was the same argument used to normalize white supremacist hand signals.

> This video contains content from NASCAR Media Group, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

His name was actually Brandon. That's not the WH reclaiming anything, that's just his name.

(And yes, I'm aware of the Brandon meme.)

It's way more than a meme!

"Let's go Brandon" was #1 on itunes for days. Another version was #3. Another version was #17. All at the same time! Huge swaths of people from from highly diverse backgrounds are unifing against what they see as poor leadership.

They are totally trying to sow FUD into the narrative form political purpose.

iTunes chart positions don't mean nearly as much as they used to, since music consumption has mostly shifted to streaming. It's common for meme songs or songs by artists with devoted fanbases to get to #1 on the iTunes chart, but make a weak showing on the more comprehensive Billboard and Rolling Stone charts, or not even enter those charts.

It's pretty obvious that they went out and found someone named Brandon to have a photo op with. This was an SEO play.

What are the chances of finding someone with the name Brandon though??

If you're looking for one? 100%.

Just such a unique, rare name though.

Depending on your definition of unique. Roughly one out of 700 people are named Brandon according to wolfram alpha

Are you joking?

You're stating you think it's obvious. But I would argue it's highly unlikely, and frankly a bit silly.

Something is wrong when the king needs to censor the jester.

I don't understand the allegories to feudalism when jesters who crossed a line weren't censored but executed. (I would guess specially if they expressed or supported any sort of anti-monarchy or anti-their-monarchs viewpoints)

Actually, it was a chief job of the jester to cross the line when other members of the court could not. Jesters, as all court members, had a natural fear of execution, but probably not any higher than any of the other courtiers.

He had a slightly different line, but got executed if he crossed that one.

maybe peasant is a better allegory; he works the lord's lands solely at the lord's discretion, keeps a tiny share of what is produced and is ejected at will

I believe banishment was a much more common punishment in feudal kingdoms than execution.

Apparently some jesters were used as messengers during campaigns / sieges and if the recipient didn't like the message they would be trebucheted back to whomever sent them.

You can't properly understand something if you can't question it. When you elevate any idea to unquestionable capital-T Truth, you blind yourself to the actual truth. You break the only mechanism we've ever discovered for figuring out how the world actually works. Censorship of anything is the enemy of human progress and always has been.

I heard a good definition of what it means to be rational the other day. If I remember correctly it was a simple as being open to error correction. Perhaps this is a statement by David Deutsch, I don’t remember right now. But I like the definition very much. If you can’t communicate how are you going to do error correction?

I can agree with you, but the issue is that this isn't an academic discussion on the merits of thorough vaccine trials. Here's the third verse:

"Let’s go, Brandon, we know he cappin’ Patriots out in the street takin’ action Huntin’ us down for speakin’ the truth (Huh) Beat down the PEDO, let’s save all the youth (Uh huh) Media lyin’, ignore all the cryin’ They buildin’ back better, but only the Taliban (What?) Pilots on strike, but to Joe, it’s irrelevant Open the border, lose all the order Divide us up so they know what we never win But we united, we here in the stadiums (Let’s go) Everyone chantin’ it, CNN slanderin’ (Let’s go) Biden collaspin’ and Democrats stealin’ it (Facts) Ayy, we look at Joe, can we get a refund? (Brandon) How ‘bout some mean tweets? (Facts) Joe is a crook, and he knows how to decieve F.J.B. is the motto in these streets, let’s go, Brandon sing it with me"

I see a lot of claims but no questions. This wasn't written to question, it was written to enforce ideas already held by the listener. I agree that the song shouldn't be censored, but I also think it doesn't have any right to be promoted or distributed by third parties. YouTube has as much of a right to take the song down as Sound Cloud has to leave it up, which is exactly equal to any venue that chooses to let him perform on stage.

YouTube certainly has that right, but they enforce it at the risk of losing any credibility on claims of impartiality or “holding free speech as a core value,” like their CEO bragged about last month.

But yes, I totally agree – the song “Fuck Donald Trump” has been on YouTube for 5+ years with millions of views, and YouTube has every right to take it down.

Oh, was not aware that youtube was part of the federal government.

It is not part of any government, but if it does work on its behest we need to ask questions.

Social media cannot embrace the immunity and authority, but none of the responsibility.

Social media can and does have both.

The whole point of Section 230 immunity is to basically neutralize the platform's responsibility so in that case they shouldn't care who says what and let the opposing sides battle each other on the merits of what's being said.

So why do they maintain huge and cumbersome speech codes and rules of what can be said on their platforms?

It's simple. Threat of regulation. The tech monopolists are like the old time robber barons of the early 20th century with their mega corps (railroads, oil, tobacco, etc). They are trying to hang on to their behemoths' power and appease political forces at the same time.

Well, also threat of losing advertisers, which is their major source of income.

In many cases, advertisers have been pressured by activists on pain of having their brand actively smeared by those activists. This leaves the question open as to how much advertisers would be motivated to withdraw their custom, absent such campaigns, or the chilling effect of the possibility of such activism.

Well sure, but that’s part of the free market, and has nothing to do with pressure from the government. The government pressure story is just not convincing to me.

I am not sure that political activists employing threats to achieve a political goal should be considered part of the free market.

The CDA as we know it definitely needs to be abolished. It was written long before Facebook and YouTube became the arbiters of truth for many people.

Let's be real. Social media doesn't have a choice. They are pre-empting orders for the government or they have already received them. There's a direct line from the white house to social media platforms. Youtube and Google is a business after-all. And the federal government could make it very hard for them to continue

From a press conference from July 15 2021

> Q Thanks, Jen. Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.

> MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.

> In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.


Since the government is leaning on them to do it, this is clearly a Constitutional right to free speech issue.

To be clear, I don't know about this case in particular, but the current administration has admitted to be in direct contact with social media platforms to tag "problematic" posts. And they may not even need to because the implicit threat is there.

I used to be part of the "its a private platform" group, but I asked myself the question, what would actual government censorship look like. And I couldn't think of an answer that would make what we have today not censorship.

If the social media platforms in question are taking down posts on the recommendations (or demands, take your pick) of the White House's senior staff, then I think it's fair to say that they are State Actor's.

Or when they are being paid by the government, which is indeed the case with covid messaging, just like they do all other MSM. Hence the lawsuits against Facebook for censorship because they are acting as agents of the state.

If they are, they need to stop.

That is essentially the novel legal theory behind Donald Trump's lawsuit against several social media companies. He claims that by following federal government censorship requests they are essentially acting as an arm of the government, and thus users should be entitled to 1st Amendment free speech protections. There is no case law to support Trump's claim so I expect he will lose, but I guess we'll see.


read it again WE do NOT HAVE FREE

we have instead a limited notion of free political when and where it does not immediately cause death of others as that would be denying them life and pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence.

Big difference


When songs promote robbing Asian people YouTube says “ In a memo to staff explaining the rationale for not barring the YG video, management wrote: “We’ll start by saying we find this video to be highly offensive and understand it is painful for many to watch, including many in Trust & Safety and especially given the ongoing violence against the Asian community. One of the biggest challenges of working in Trust & Safety is that sometimes we have to leave up content we disagree with or find offensive… Sometimes videos that otherwise violate our policies are allowed to stay up if they have Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic context…

“In this case, this video receives an EDSA exception as a musical performance,” YouTube’s memo to staffers continued. “While EDSA is not a free pass for any content, there are likely thousands of music videos that would otherwise violate policies including Sex & Nudity, Violent or Graphic Content and Hate Speech were it not for these sorts of EDSA exceptions. As a result, removing this video would have far-reaching implications for other musical content containing similarly violent or offensive lyrics, in genres ranging from rap to rock. While we debated this decision at length amongst our policy experts, we made the difficult decision to leave the video up to enforce our policy consistently and avoid setting a precedent that may lead to us having to remove a lot of other music on YouTube.”

Ah, so what's good for the goose is actually not good for the gander. Interesting...

YouTube has a very clear policy that only one opinion on COVID-19 is allowed on their platform. They are enforcing that policy.

And govt. totally didn't push for that exceptional "policy", it arose from the first principles of free market competition. Any apparent similarity to moderation on Weibo, TikTok or Bilibili is purely coincidental.

Sure, why not? Would it be suspicious if you and your neighbor both shared the same local doctor and got similar medical advice?

Doctors are expected to give medical advice while the US government is banned from policing speech. The analogy is fundamentally flawed.

I don't understand why you're mentioning the US government or policing speech, this article (and my analogy) is about youtube taking a video down. I think you may have misunderstood the analogy.

YouTube doesn’t censor enough? I agree.

Assaulting Asian people isn't incompatible with an explicit whitehouse policy initiative and in that example the artist wasn't wearing an "impeach biden" shirt.

Edit: People keep responding to this comment claiming that the video didn't feature an impeach biden shirt, then deleting their comments when they realized what they saw was a video using the same name exploiting the fact that the real video is hidden. :) If you feel the urge to make that reply, instead just update this counter instead:

So much of YouTube is songs promoting violence against women and this gets censored, ha

I think the US government messed this internet thing up big time when they didn't classify the internet as a utility, which I think it clearly is. A phone company can't discriminate based on politics. Neither can a power company. They were deemed important for all of society, business and personal use, equally. Everyone gets equal access regardless of beliefs. We play silly games that overall bring disharmony to everyone. None of this is good in the long term. No one is winning.

In most cases, well publicised censorship of art backfires and provides more notoriety and fans for the artist.

In most of the cases you remember you mean, in the vast majority of the time you never heard about it and it was successful.

Youtube doesn't care. It can't have antivax stuff on their platform because advertisers don't want their ads on controversial content.

I don't think that is true. At the very least, they can classify these kind of things (and probably already do) and let advertisers choose if they want their ads on them or not.

advertisers don't care as long as no one points it out

What connection is there to ads and content? It’s a random (to a degree) ad selected by youtube you can’t wait to close so you watch your chosen content.

Further, videos are not outright banned on behalf of advertisers, only demonetised. Also, whether you agree or not, there would be advertisers who wish to target this audience. There isn’t a shared moral code that all advertisers abide by.

Somethings very wrong when advertisers are acting as content moderators.

This is definitely what I would call a "wrong Why"

EVerybody's paycheck depends on pretending to take the vax seriously. From the walmart cashiers to the advertising execs. It's a good joke.

I think that's changing as challenging the vaccine efficacy or risk profile has become less controversial in the last month. Been sent about half a dozen videos in last week with high viewership and they haven't been removed. This is probably because all of Northern Europe has essentially banned Moderna due to myocarditis risk, and data from many countries, even the CDC's own, show the vaccinated now getting infected at similar rates as unvaccinated (i.e. antibody drop off or virus mutation).


Responding to person who wants to learn more, I'm going in good faith that you're not the ad hominem type. Given the climate of cancellation and censorship not a lot of people are speaking up, so take what you can get...

The recent Joe Rogan episode with Berenson is a review of quite a few papers and government data sets which they parse. Watch it on Spotify. You're going to get intro'd to data from Israel, UK, CDC, others about vaccine efficacy and about adverse events in young people due to inflammation from accumulation of spike protein.

CDC's most recent data shows 40% of covid deaths over last week were of the vaccinated, e.g. relevant screen shots from CDC's website via this random guy, https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/145165375288951604...

You can certainly google Northern Europe's halt on Moderna (either for youth or for all). Sweden just halted today, e.g. Shttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/sweden-suspends-moderna-...

There's a lot on YT, round table discussions with medical professionals are the most interesting. I've observed the same censorious culture on HN as on social media when it comes to vaccines, so I'm not going to share links so they can stay up for others who are making difficult decisions. You can find them by poking around accounts on Twitter Gab Substack of people who are speaking out against vaccine mandates or related.

Not sure where you're getting your data but here's some data for you: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/...

Over the past month, fully vaccinated individuals accounted for 29% of cases and 19% of hospitalizations (In British Columbia, Canada).

We have ~75% of the population vaccinated. So 25% of the people account for 71% of the cases and the case rate amongst vaccinated is significantly lower. What you really want to think about is what that says about the R number difference between those populations because our R is hovering around 1 so the vaccine is making a huge difference.

In regards to covid-19 in particular:

> Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States


The study is flawed in many ways. There is no control for any other measures in place. Also looking at the case rate is not the right metric since we don't know the base rate for the comparison, I would want to look at an estimate of R instead.

EDIT: "Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. "

I follow Israel's Covid situations very closely because I have family there and this statement is misleading. The increase in cases in Israel was related to the delta variant arriving, the overall vaccine coverage being low (yeah, 60% isn't enough for Delta) and all restrictions being lifted. And yes, some waning of the effectiveness of the vaccines as well. With the reintroduction of some restrictions (such as vaccine passports e.g.), higher vaccine coverage, and some 3rd booster shots their cases have dropped significantly (by a factor of 8 over a month or so!).

You're looking at presented cases and hospitalizations - a fraction of a fraction of total covid infections. There's no way this accurately reflects R0 (assuming that's what you're talking about - sorry if I'm wrong!). And determining the impact vaccines have on R0 is nearly impossible - there's too many unknown unknowns that would confound it.

For example, if a flu vaccine was administered at the end of a seasonal peak, we'd think the vaccine caused the dropoff because we don't understand seasonality.

We don’t actually care about infections, we care about the things infections cause. A single virus infecting a single cell is an infection, what happens after that depends on the immune system. Antibodies are supposed to stick around briefly after an infection to minimize the risks of reinfection. For near lifetime immunity as provided by the measles vaccine it comes down to memory B cells which drastically speed up the adaptive immune response. Thus reducing the period an infection is contagious and reducing the risks of severe infection.

Note, the above applies both to natural infections and vaccination. Also note many childhood vaccinations are effective for decades.

GP was referring to a limited subset of data that gives an incorrect picture of what the R0 is. I was trying to point out why that data is the wrong set to draw a meaningful number from.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out, sorry!

Yea, I skipped that part of your comment as meaningless. RO excludes vaccinations and prior infections by definition.


In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number, or basic reproductive number (sometimes called basic reproduction ratio or basic reproductive rate), denoted R 0 R_{0} (pronounced R nought or R zero),[1] of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection.[2] The definition assumes that no other individuals are infected or immunized (naturally or through vaccination). Some definitions, such as that of the Australian Department of Health, add the absence of "any deliberate intervention in disease transmission".

I assume your concerned about transmission, but that’s not a constant when you include vaccinations reducing infection severity.

First let's deal with the nitpicky semantics. R0 is is the basic reproduction number while R generally denotes the effective reproduction number. I am talking about R.

There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R. While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this.

There are tons of studies, random e.g.: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/10/1245/pdf

Trying to argue confounding factors vs. the observations is IMO very weak. Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain. It seems like the people who want proof here set the bar impossibly high, no proof will ever satisfy them.

EDIT: adding some more references...






> There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R.

I think you are misusing the word indisputable, since clearly, people are disputing it.

> While it's true that the accuracy of estimates for R depends on many factors and certainly there have always been some cases flying under the radar (though that has been studied extensively via antibody studies and other means) proxies like the number of people dying, the number of people hospitalized, while controlling for things like vaccinations are accurate enough to detect this.

You just listed a number of proxies that are inaccurate, and/or, generally missing.


Simply because Covid is highly dangerous to the advanced in age, those that express ACE2, and those with multiple co-morbidities, in particular obese diabetics.

For example, a white male 6' 200 lbs with no comorbidities nonsmoker has the following mortality rate by age:

18: 2.1 per 1M

30: 2.1 per 1M

45: 1.6 per 100K

60: 4.3 per 100K

75: 2.2 per 10k

90: 0.7 per 10k

So, while covid may move through a retirement community like the Death Angel, across a team of 16 year old soccer players most will be asymptomatic, and a few may appear to have a cold.

As someone that has had access to a regional hospital system's covid counts, I can assure you that this is not a disease of the very young and fit.

Our surveillance numbers around covid antibodies is incredibly low because it is only a tiny percentage of the population that is getting tested for antibodies. There are more people being tested for active infections, than there are for antibodies.

Indisputable this is not.

You're making it sound like the people looking at this are idiots. Of course this is tracked across age groups. Look at the BC data where it's broken down by age.

Also are you suggesting that the relative portion of the population in certain age groups has changed dramatically? Because otherwise you can still look at the aggregate as indicators.

Sorry if I'm misusing the work indisputable. English is not my mother tongue. Looking at the dictionary I also don't think it means what you think it means. Someone can dispute anything. We could say gravity is indisputable but someone can come and say there's no gravity. People say the earth is flat. Possibly in this day and age nothing is indisputable.

From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat. I mean maybe the earth is flat. Even the guy who responded to me saying I was wrong then changes his mind on that.

> From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat. I mean maybe the earth is flat. Even the guy who responded to me saying I was wrong then changes his mind on that

Judging from the statistics of high vaccination rate countries like Israel vs Sweden,[1] there are a few important questions to respond with such as:

Which vaccine, formulated against which variant?

Vaccinated When?

Against which infectious variant?

At what point was herd immunity hit?

Overall, it appears as though Sweden's approach was better as they are not having a 3rd wave, they hit herd immunity, because natural immunity > vaccination, they have more durable results against future variants, etc.

I'm not disputing whether we should vaccinate some that are old, or have comordibidities, or want to get it. But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population. In effect, adapting the virus to target the vaccinated.

[1] https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/why-does-no-one-ever-talk-abou...

I agree all these factors matter. But you're not really commenting on the question at hand.

But since you dragged me into a different debate, Sweden has 66% of the population vaccinated. So if they did so great on herd immunity why are they vaccinating? Is 66% of their population old and/or with co-morbidity? So clearly the Swedish disagree with the idea that you should only vaccinate the old or those with comorbidity? Are there any good examples of countries that are open, not vaccinating, and are doing well? I honestly lost track of what Sweden has been doing exactly but I think even early on the portrayal that they're just acting normally was wrong, they relied on recommendation rather than enforcement... and I think they did worse than their peers.

> But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population.

Fact check: vaccines do not cause variants.

Citation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9

Sense check: most variants of concern emerged in countries prior to mass vaccination.

Short version: why would vaccine-induced immunity provide materially different selection pressure to naturally-acquired-via-infection immunity? Neither are 100% effective, and will therefore allow immune-escape mutations through.

Fact check your fact check:

> "Not all vaccines prevent infection. Some, known as leaky vaccines, prolong host survival or reduce disease symptoms without preventing viral replication and transmission. Although leaky vaccines provide anti-disease benefits to vaccinated individuals, new research by CIDD’s Andrew Read, David Kennedy and colleagues at the Avian Oncogenic Virus Group in the United Kingdom, and The University of New England in Australia, has demonstrated that leaky vaccines can make the situation for unvaccinated individuals worse. Leaky vaccines work by enhancing host immunity to a particular pathogen, without necessarily blocking or slowing viral replication. The result is that infected but vaccinated individuals have extended survival, allowing highly virulent pathogen that would normally reach an evolutionary dead-end in a dead host, can transmit. The evolutionary consequences of high virulence are thus reduced and these pathogens can be selectively favored as a result of leaky vaccination." [1]

> "Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts." [2]

> "Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new vaccines brought the disease the under control. But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages. Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble. This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”" [3]

> "Vaccination elicits immune responses capable of potently neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. However, ongoing sur- veillance has revealed the emergence of variants harboring mutations in spike, the main target of neutralizing antibodies. To understand the impact of these variants, we evaluated the neutralization potency of 99 indi- viduals that received one or two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines against pseudoviruses representing 10 globally circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2. Five of the 10 pseudoviruses, harboring receptor- binding domain mutations, including K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y, were highly resistant to neutralization. Cross-neutralization of B.1.351 variants was comparable to SARS-CoV and bat-derived WIV1-CoV, suggest- ing that a relatively small number of mutations can mediate potent escape from vaccine responses. While the clinical impact of neutralization resistance remains uncertain, these results highlight the potential for variants to escape from neutralizing humoral immunity and emphasize the need to develop broadly protective inter- ventions against the evolving pandemic." [4]

> "HIV patient had COVID for over 7 months, infection mutated over 30 times....It is noted that patients who have HIV are not more susceptible to contracting a coronavirus infection than those without, nor does it worsen the medical implications of the infection. Additionally, the fact that the disease stays present within the body of immunosuppressed patients for longer periods of time compared to healthier individuals could mean that HIV patients could be an incessant source of transmission and mutations of the coronavirus - almost like a factory of variants." [5]

If you have high viral transmission against a less effective variant, of course you will have natural selection of a virus for greater transmissibility within that specific environment. If the environment is now a conventional spike antibody human environment, this will promote changes to the spike, and, changes to the overall virus.

Furthermore, when you have a leaky vaccine distributed to a large population where viral spread is still occuring, you promote genetic transfer between viruses that are mutually infecting patients, as well

This is science 101, unless you disbelieve in adaptation?

[1] http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promot...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/

[3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...

[4] https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2821%2900...

[5] https://www.jpost.com/health-science/hiv-patient-had-covid-f...

Why do you suppose the author of the study you cite disagrees with the interpretation you are making?:


> There's indisputable evidence that the vaccination is impacting R

> Ofcourse we can't tell anything with certainty in this domain

Which one is it?

I'm sorry - there are issues with nearly all the links and data you've provided, but I don't have the time to go through them with you.

I agree with you that the vaccine is very likely impacting R. I don't agree that it is enough to matter yet - we could vaccinate everyone and covid would still spread. The vaccines will keep people from dying. Any more benefit than that is still unclear.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying you agree with me the vaccine is very likely impacting R yet you're saying it doesn't help. Which one is it?

We have lots of places, such as where I live, where the number of deaths and hospitalizations and daily cases is about level. Since you agreed with me vaccinations impact R you can also agree with me that going from 75% vaccinations to 100% vaccinations is going to cause that level trajectory to go down? What is your projection?

As to your question "which one is it" there is no conflict. The evidence is indisputable yet there is no certainty. Simply because in this domain there is no certainty. It's not a math proof. It is by far the most likely thing that's happening. I mean maybe aliens are curing people to coincide with the different levels of vaccinations but I've yet to hear some reasonable hypothesis how in place like where I live where seasonality dictates higher rates, restrictions have been relaxed, and there is clear correlation between higher vaccination rates and reduced other metrics (change in new cases/day, hospitalizations, deaths). I think if you disagree with the obvious you should at least offer some other hypothesis supported by some data.

>You're contradicting yourself. You're saying you agree with me the vaccine is very likely impacting R yet you're saying it doesn't help. Which one is it?

When it comes to exponential growth, the difference in practice between an exponent of 1.5 vs 2 is negligible.

But the difference between 1.0 and 0.5 is not. Where in the west are we currently seeing 1.5 or 2? Have a look here: https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/canada/

That’s misinformation.

Antibody drop off is supposed to happen, it’s different than reduced vaccine effectiveness. Childhood vaccination for measles for example provides near lifetime protection via the adaptive immune systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_B_cell Which cuts days from how quickly the body can respond to infections.

When people of similar age and health with and without vaccination die at similar rates then you can say their ineffective. There is a short term boost from antibodies after an infection or vaccination, but they don’t prevent infection they just reduce infections to the point where we don’t notice.

Any links I can read more about this?

In regards to covid in particular:

> Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States


Look at rates of hospitalization and death.

It appears that the Moderna vaccine at least is very effective at reducing severity but does not prevent infection (or does not do so well enough).

This ironically makes it more dangerous to not be vaccinated since vaccinated people are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers.

I’ll take it over nothing. It’s damn good for getting a vaccine in a year. There will probably be better ones in 2-3 years.

No, because it’s not true.

You can however read the CDC report that shows vaccines are still hugely effective in preventing death.


When I advertise to consumers, it is not important to me that they believe vaccination against COVID-19 is good or not.

I really struggle to think of any company for which it is important that their customers are not sceptical of vaccinations? Maybe airlines and hotels.

Since I can’t see how any company would want to reject customers for making certain decisions about their health or not, it appears to me that it rather is forces within Google, Facebook, and Twitter that do not want any voice critical of their line to be shown. For this reason they (shadow)ban people expressing forbidden or politically incorrect worldviews.

Brand owners don't want their brands next to conspiracy theories in the same way they don't want their brands next to pornography.

Most of YouTube is screeching, inane people. I’m not sure why brands would care whether their ads play over antivax conspiracies vs guys eating hair cake and throwing up on each other.

I’m not sure how conspiracy theories are more harmful than just tons of other things.

Tons of inane content ends up getting demonitized on YouTube because it isn't advertiser friendly.

And tons doesn’t. I think the issue I have is I don’t understand what gets to make money and what doesn’t. Since there’s no transparency, it seems arbitrary to me.

Since when do all brand owners share the same values? Why should advertisers be setting content standards regarding what you can and can’t watch.

Many consumers may see you advertising (providing monetary support to) conspiracy theorists, and boycott you for it.

Advertisers have to be concerned about being associated with "personae non gratae".

If that’s a concern then why are they targeting their ads on that content? You can easy toggle off those options in an ad manager. There are companies who wish to target that audience also, there is no need to outright ban content because of advertisers.

I really struggle to think of any company for which it is important that their customers are not sceptical of vaccinations?

So you've never heard of the entire healthcare industry?

Aside from healthcare, every company of a reasonable size wants people to get vaccinated so that the supply chain can be repaired and they can go back to selling things the way they used to.

This is a really funny take on the supply chain problems. I guess it's always fun to blame the deplorables, but you might want to read about what the actual problems with the supply chain are, including on the front page of HN.

have you never heard of conflict of interest and availability bias? also, reasonable people understand that vaccines aren't the limiting factor to supply chains or business, it's politics.

But how often is it well publicized?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact