[ab_testing]

The point here is that youtube is not a harbinger of scientific truth. These doctors present their findings with their collected data to come to this conclusion that the according to them, this virus is not dangerous and the quarantine should end.

Does Youtube also censor videos where plumbers present an incorrect way to install a toilet that can lead to backflow and flooding.

The point to make here is that Youtube is NOT the New England Journal of Science and should not act like one for just one topic - Coronavirus.

If anybody feels that their data or interpreation of the data is incorrect, they should post their own video on Youtube, refuting their claims.

Instead what Youtube is doing is just silencing them.

[vannevar]

Does Youtube also censor videos where plumbers present an incorrect way to install a toilet that can lead to backflow and flooding.

1) They probably would censor the plumber, if they received enough complaints about it, and 2) an incorrectly installed toilet doesn't have the potential to kill tens of thousands of people, whereas erroneous information about the danger of COVID-19 very well could. So they're not waiting for the complaints.

[davorak]

> The point to make here is that Youtube is NOT the New England Journal of Science and should not act like one for just one topic

Nor is cnn, fox news, msnbc, etc. They all exercise editorial control over what goes on their channel however.

The rules by which youtube exercises its editor control is its guidelines and policies from my understanding.

[LanceH]

> The rules by which youtube exercises its editor control is its guidelines and policies from my understanding.

Which may be the result of its execs being dragged before congress about "fake news" -- hence the allegations of censorship.

[runawaybottle]

Is that analogy sincere? YouTube itself has channels, no? Youtube is the TV. Wouldn’t it be fair to say you can exercise editorial control over your channel, but television manufacturers shouldn’t come with it’s own defined restrictions on content?

It would suck if a firmware upgrade goes out to all LG TVs disabling certain content. It’s within LG’s right, but what a betrayal of the customer who was sold a non universal television.

[Smoosh]

> The point to make here is that Youtube is NOT the New England Journal of Science

Exactly! So why are the doctors using it as a platform when they should be going through reputable peer-reviewed channels?

[ratsoman2]

What about evidence that the Jews created and disseminated Covid-19? Should I be able to present that evidence even though it's flawed and full of incorrect data?

Youtube owns the platform, we allowed it to become the largest and most powerful platform but there are others out there. Youtube (and google, and bing) have no reason to have to host misleading, wrong, or hurtful opinions/websites.

[ceejayoz]

> Does Youtube also censor videos where plumbers present an incorrect way to install a toilet that can lead to backflow and flooding.

This is more akin to YouTube removing a “I’m a plumber, trust me, clean your bathroom by mixing bleach and ammonia in your toilet” video.

[fao_]

    The point here is that youtube is not a harbinger of 
    scientific truth.

    The point to make here is that Youtube is NOT the New 
    England Journal of Science and should not act like one 
    for just one topic - Coronavirus.

    If anybody feels that their data or interpreation of the 
    data is incorrect, they should post their own video on 
    Youtube, refuting their claims.

But this interpretation is wrong.

A scientific journal has a panel, which are qualified experts in the field or related fields, that read and pick up on statistical errors, and other errors, and decide whether or not to publish the paper. Youtube does not.

Peer review as a whole, means that your work gets assessed by experts, and they decide before publication if your paper is of the right quality to enter the journal.

'Peer Review' =/= 'Allowing everyone to post and the truth will be found out or agreed upon in the end'

'Peer Review' == 'Having your work assessed by equally or more skilled people, who then decide if your work is good enough to publish'

Youtube operates in a fundamentally different way to peer review, it allows anyone to post, then retroactively decides if that work meets guidelines. This means that not only is it not possible to immediately filter work that is submitted, it also does not go through proper assessment of it's validity by a panel of specialists and experts. Youtube could not operate with it's current business model using that method, and so is forced to choose another. Just because it's retroactive enforcement, doesn't mean that the terms of the service and guidelines are not in force, or should be considered censorship. Nobody is actually censoring these people, they are free to post their video literally anywhere else, but they broke the terms of the Youtube service.

As many other people have pointed out, the work produced and hosted on Youtube does contain errors, these are statistical errors that would have been caught had they submitted this to an academic journal, however the video's makers explicitly decidedin to publish it on Youtube. There is very little reason to do that, other than to market this information to others.

As this information is dubious at best, it is fundamentally and ethically irresponsible of them, as scientists, as medical workers who have taken an oath to do no harm, to publish this work on Youtube and to the public without going through the basic step that is peer review. The comments section does exist, but has no value, because you cannot count on the general public to be as informed in the subject matter as a peer review panel would be.