Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by reagank 2243 days ago
It has nothing to do with opinions, and it has nothing to do with ideology, except insofar as these two doctors were motivated by their ideology to profoundly misunderstand or misrepresent statistical sampling.

It’s not one side thinks this, the other side thinks that, it’s that their video is factually wrong, and in being wrong encourages dangerous behavior.
2 comments
twomoretime 2243 days ago
Really? Are you really so arrogant as to ignore that YouTube is far more likely to be making an ideological decision here?

An expert made a statement. YouTube went out of its way to find a doctor who supported YouTube's ideological slant and used that as justification for taking action.

This obliviousness. This is why we must restrict power. This is why we can't have nice things.

link
joshuamorton 2243 days ago
What makes these two doctors experts in epidemiology and statistics?
link
twomoretime 2243 days ago
Do you really trust YouTube to make that decision? That's the whole point. I'm not actually interested in the credentials on either side - merely pointing out that YouTube is doing far more harm than good in choosing a side. Society would be far better off without their curation.
link
joshuamorton 2243 days ago
No, you claimed "an expert made a statement". I want to clarify. No expert made a statement on youtube. Two nonexperts made statements, and Youtube removed them, presumably at the behest of experts (like the WHO, whom youtube is using to set guidelines on removable content).
link
twomoretime 2243 days ago
A doctor on the frontlines is an expert. He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology, but his credentials are sufficient that the difference between credibility between the scientists and the doctors is too small for youtube to reliably choose one over the other. YouTube is not an accreditation agency or an arbiter of credibility.

YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus. The fact that this particular decision agrees with what the majority of us think is right doesn't mean that YouTube is right to choose.

link
joshuamorton 2243 days ago
> He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology

Exactly, so he should not be speaking on epidemiology. And it's even more dangerous because people, like you, believe he could be an expert.

> YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus.

But the WHO does.

link
Fjolsvith 2243 days ago
That's why you should always get a second opinion.
link