[ani-ani]

He is easily one of the least bullshit-y sources when it comes to handling of COVID. But then there's this right in the middle of the interview: "And when you have [posts] encrypted, there is no way to know what it is. I personally believe government should not allow those types of lies or fraud or child pornography [to be hidden with encryption like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger]". Quite literally, encrypted communication should be illegal and the government should read everyone's private messages. What motivates a statement like this?

[tptacek]

What's frustrating about this question is that it (inevitably!) commands the top of the HN thread with a discussion of the least interesting thing in the article. It's an article about COVID and Facebook, and here we're recapitulating the end-to-end encryption debate for the 8-zillionth time.

[solarhoma]

I would argue that this statement from Bill is the most interesting. This statement shows Bill Gates, someone who has influence on legislatures, making a statement against encryption.

[flocial]

COVID will eventually pass even with unnecessary fatalities in its wake. E2e encryption and loss of rights will stay around much longer.

[api]

What does encryption even have to do with COVID? All the disinformation I see is cleartext on social media.

[eanzenberg]

Gates is scared people are passing bad information through encrypted platforms such as whatsapp. Next, he will require 24/7 monitoring of every private citizen to make sure we don’t call him mean names.

[philliphaydon]

I'm not convinced e2e encryption exists in WhatsApp. Every time I have conversations about products in whats app I get those products as adverts in Facebook.

[artellectual]

That in and of itself is a testament to how problematic our man-made legal system is.

Compare a nature made system to a man made system.

Nature changes over time. Our laws and regulations however do not get updated to reflect the times. That is the reason why human progress is slow. It's because humans don't change. That is the root cause of all evil. Humans like the comfort of not having to change.

[akiselev]

> Nature changes over time. Our laws and regulations however do not get updated to reflect the times. That is the reason why human progress is slow. It's because humans don't change. That is the root cause of all evil. Humans like the comfort of not having to change.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today. It took a billion plus years for nature to come up with humans and about ten thousand years for us to go from written language to causing a mass extinction. To call such a comparison "hyperbolic" would be an understatement.

[avindroth]

> Nature changes over time. Our laws and regulations however do not get updated to reflect the times. That is the reason why human progress is slow. It's because humans don't change. That is the root cause of all evil. Humans like the comfort of not having to change.

You have put together arguments that make sense individually, but do not make sense when you weave them together. Nature changes over time, but over a long period of time (e.g. evolution is slow). Our laws and regulations do not get updated to reflect the times, yes, but the times that are changing is because of humans, not nature. A manmade part of society is having a tough time catching up with another manmade part of society. Human progress is NOT slow, at least when you are comparing it with nature. Humans do not change on an individual level, but they change a great deal en masse culturally, psychologically, etc. We are actually almost built for adaptation and change intergenerationally.

There is a subtle point here about institutions refusing change, but you cannot make a valid comparison of speed between human institutions and nature.

[roenxi]

Everyone has a range of opinions and some of them will be factually/morally/logically/practically objectionable. The fact that Gates has an opinion that you, I or indeed everyone disagrees with is not interesting.

What about "It’s insane how confused the trials here in the US have been."? That opinion is very important and has implications for how everyone here should act. The last 6 months have been expensively purchased and the best thing that could have been bought was good information. If that time has been wasted then there should be reform of an evidence-based nature. This is an opinion that really deserves debate, opinions thrown about and evidence dredged up. With encryption, HN will basically just agree that he is wrong and everyone likes encryption. Not much more to say. Maybe we will think of the children on the way thorough.

Encryption is an important issue but frankly that isn't what Gates is talking about, so arguing about it is a bit pointless. It is barely even germain to the topic he is talking about. He is talking about a global pandemic.

[khawkins]

It does speak to why he's treated with so much distrust, as is discussed by other threads. Unlike the average person, Gates is someone who can actually make things happen with his incredible wealth. It suggests a form of paternalistic authoritarian attitude towards social issues that undeniably colors his attitude towards this pandemic.

You can also read in his tone that he feels personally slighted by not being given a seat at the table in the US COVID response. People point to South Korea's success and call the US a failure, not realizing that if you implemented their measures in the US: things like forced contact tracing, forced registration, and locking up the infected in isolated sites, you'd have a civil insurrection on your hands.

[avindroth]

History of democracy in South Korea is short, and privacy is not recognized as an important virtue. Sacrificing your rights for the nation (or historically the kingdom) is an important duty, and failure to abide by such ‘selflessness’ is deemed as malicious and egocentric. It will take many more decades for South Korea to shed its cultural shadow of being subject to a ruler.

A case and point: Seoul is riddled with security cameras on every street. This makes Seoul an incredibly safe city, but also with decreased sense of privacy. Cameras are everywhere, and this is not recognized much as a potential problem in South Korea.

With Covid, there is a pending legislation to sign in your name and social security number whenever you visit designated crowded areas. I am worried for the increased loss of freedom and privacy in South Korea, but the culture worries less about that, and more about mutual subsistence.

[tangjurine]

If a student failed a biology class because his hyper-religious parents would beat him if he didn't, he still failed.

[khawkins]

And it's right to publicly shame him for that?

[Erlich_Bachman]

> The fact that Gates has an opinion that you, I or indeed everyone disagrees with is not interesting.

Evidently it is interesting to the HN croud, because this is how they vote.

Why argue about this? This is what we have a voting system on HN for. It shows us what is objectively interesting and what is not, we don't really need you or anyone else to tell us what should be interesting, we have real data to demonstrate what is.

[justsee]

We aren't recapitulating the e2e debate, Gates is in his interview.

Someone like Gates pushing for the end of private speech at scale is always going to be of interest to the HN crowd.

[stjohnswarts]

It remains interesting that the various powers that be continuously want to take away what little privacy we 99% have. They can't imagine a world where normal people can exist without their oversight. This includes most billionaires and elected officials. I am glad he is contributing his billions to helping solve covid and other global disasters but these little clips can be telling about the individual's belief and to always realize they have many sides to their character.

[sxxahsuxh]

Bill Gates said something stupid and people are talking about it. His phrasing is what I expect an old person who doesn't have decades of industry pioneering experience in technology to say. So weird.

Point is, who cares what else he has to say if he says stuff like this? He's as much an expert on technology as he is on pathology, so if his opinions on technology are bad... well you get the point.

[frogpelt]

He probably feels like he is the subject matter expert on technology but on medical stuff he listens to other people who claim to be subject matter experts.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

In defense of the OP, fair balance: a counter complaint

What is frustrating about this comment is that it inevitably commands the top of the HN thread, "for the 8-zillionth time", because its author's moniker automatically attracts "upvotes" due its familiarity, not because the comment is the most interesting.

That said, this comment is probably worthy of being at the top since the E2E debate is indeed a tired one and that sentiment probably has many sympathisers. However, as someone else pointed out, Gates brought this up, not HN. And it does directly relate to discussions about COVID on Facebook (WhatsApp) and the ability to censor them. Of course, there is also the argument that newcomers to HN will not know all the past discussions of E2E, nor are they expected to read them before commenting. We regularly see HN re-post items that have previously been submitted, re-opening discussions that are old hat, inviting us to re-hash them.

While some readers may grow tired of seeing the same topics discussed over and over again, other readers may grow tired of seeing the same usernames at the top of so many threads, over and over again, no matter what their comments.

[robomartin]

@tptacek

This is one of the reasons for which I proposed that HN, by default, display discussions collapsed down to first branches. Just show the text for the first branches and collapse their corresponding conversations. Readers would only expand branches they find relevant or interesting and comment within them.

You could take this one step further and only show the first two lines (or n characters) of first branch comments. This would force a style where authors would have to provide a two line summary of their comment (if it is a first branch comment) in order to facilitate scanning. With this approach the list of first branches would almost look like the HN home page, where you can quickly scan the short titles and expand topics of interest.

To address your comment directly, if the inevitable makes it to the top of the first branch list it will be easy to scan other first branches on the same page without having to scroll or take any action. This might promote participation in other threads within the conversation and maybe even the bubbling-up of more "worthy" contenders for the top first branch.

[blaser-waffle]

I've set up a similar approach with 3rd party apps on reddit.

Give me top threads and a level below them to see a rebuttal -- if I want to see more I'll break them down.

I do wish there was a way to see if there are high value or low value posts below, like someone got gilded or got 400 upvotes or something. Not sure how this would be implemented though; I could see terrible pun threads getting too many upvotes and throwing that off.

[127]

It will remain very interesting up to the moment where someone comes up with a solution on how to escape a tyrannical panopticon totalitarian state.

[freddie_mercury]

HN is as much of an echo chamber as any other internet forum. 90% of the time you can predict in advance what the top-voted comment is going to be. Most of the time it will be some pointless quibbling about how the subject line technically isn't correct somehow. The rest of the time it'll be about one of the three or four hobby horses of HN. "I don't use social media", "WFH has no flaws", "whiteboard interviews are worse than waterboarding", etc.

[waihtis]

Any community will have an echo chamber, that's part of the basic human fabric. It's still a great forum (and you probably think so also.)

[Erlich_Bachman]

Exactly, while it is also an echo chamber, I would argue it is one of the better ones. It selects information to echo in a much more effective and useful way than many other platforms. This is why we are here. Not because we assume that it would be somehow 100% objective place where everything is true. Is that even possible? If you have to select, from the tons of info out there, a list of something that can be parsed by a human in reasonable time, you will automatically filter out, and thus create a subjective view of reality.

[blaser-waffle]

Aye. Generally speaking, the filtering here is better, and the groupthink is operating at a different level than the broader population. It's groupthink nonetheless, but if you anticipate that you can usually find good info.

Plus the tone & tenor of the discussions is usually better, e.g. full sentences, (mostly) coherent posts, etc. Not like on Reddit where the top post on something that makes the front page is literally just "bruh".

[freddie_mercury]

> It's still a great forum (and you probably think so also.)

I think is generally good. I wouldn't call it "great". I can only assume that people who think it is great only ever care about tech (where HN is a good tech site) and politics (where every politics discussion on the internet is terrible). Every other interest I have has a forum that is better than HN. HN suffers somewhat from its demographic monoculture and seems to have way more opinionated arm-chair quarterbacks than other forums I'm in. I assume that many other "career-related" forums have similar issues, though. I can imagine lawyer forum probably has lots of lawyers who have never practiced Constitutional law but giving strong opinions on it on a daily basis.

[sukilot]

Bill Gates was the one who linked encryption to Covid, not HN.

[dpweb]

Was puzzled by Gates' statement there. I didn't catch how the 'demon sperm doctors' video was related to encryption.

Rather the very difficult and important issue, how do you stop someone with 80 million followers from spreading lies and large numbers of people believing them, and who determines what are facts and what are lies. By Facebook, Twitter, etc.. removing Trump's posts for instance, aren't they taking upon themselves the authority of what's true and what isn't?

I have to believe the only answer is something they call freedom of speech. You can say whatever the hell you want publicly. I'm appalled by the fact the highest authority in the world retweeted the sperm doctors video as well, but I'm not so comfortable with FB, Twitter, etc. deciding for me what is true and not, or worth me reading, either.

So, the encryption issue doesn't apply here. It's a serious issue, but separate. The problem is not that encrypted lies can be sent. The lies that reach 1000 people aren't the problem. The problem is the unencrypted lies that REACH 80 million+ people.

[justsee]

It was disappointing to see that segue from Gates.

Consider that the pile-on of that doctor - an African from Cameroon where Christianity is blended with traditional tribal superstition - happened around the same time as the Professor of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health published a Newsweek piece on how HCL is a valid early-stage treatment [1].

I understand this is how the media works: an advocate of HCL who has fringe cultural beliefs was retweeted by Trump, so the story was irresistible and endlessly amplified (including here by Gates).

But the quality of debate would be so much better if the media engaged with the (superficially) strongest proponents of a position (such as Harvey Risch) and aimed withering criticism and analysis at them instead. Shouldn't the focus be on dismantling the claims of the most, not the least, credentialed proponents?

Instead the media from all quarters deliberately amplifies the most fringe proponents, so now HCL is shorthand for expressing disdain for particular cultural beliefs, and those 10 million views were significantly driven by most media outlets covering her.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exis...

[eloff]

Yes, objectively the evidence I've seen supports that HCL and zinc, if given early enough, improve the outcome for the patient.

The media, which is mostly left leaning, ignores this and instead prefers to take cheap shots at Trump whenever possible on the subject. It seems very biased, very childish, and entirely divorced from reality - actually that more or less sums up the state of US politics lately.

[justsee]

In the above comment I'm advocating for honest debate, not HCL.

That debate has of course not been particularly honest: amplifying the weakest proponents, fabrication of negative data with the Surgisphere scandal [1] and fixating on studies which don't replicate the claimed beneficial outpatient (pre-hospitalization) treatment processes (low-dose HCL, zinc, azithromycin).

However none of that means HCL is actually effective, just that the public debate being prosecuted is quite weak when looked at carefully.

It could just be that once a mainstream position is established (which might be correct!) it becomes easier to engage in influencing to enforce or signal tribal commitment to the established consensus in place of continued honest debate.

I really don't want to hear about the cultural beliefs of the weakest advocates, or of studies which don't replicate the claimed treatment.

I want to see engagement with the strongest advocates, and studies which irrefutably rule out the specific treatment, and if they rule this out as just another alluring low-cost, ineffective treatment, then at least we've reached that point honestly.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/12/covid-19-studi...

[khawkins]

I'd like to see people approach the debate with enough nuance to recognize that the science on recent topics is extremely flawed, and the trustworthiness of results is decreased significantly when it becomes politicized.

And honestly, doing placebo-controlled studies might be a colossal mistake. If people genuinely benefit from the placebo effect, it's a feature, not a flaw. If people get HCQ+Z-pac+zinc and recover then it's a victory either way. If people are incorrectly led to believe HCQ is poison and get a reverse-placebo effect then we're not really helping anyone, are we?

[RabbitmqGuy]

This.

Something I've wished for; hacker news only with top level comments

[gorgoiler]

Perhaps all top level comments could have a subject or title. It would be as if they were, themselves, submissions.

This is one of the things Slashdot did rather well with its categorization and ratings, though if that system were used then I’m sure everything would just be rated +5 Insightful with little signal over the noise.

[reillyse]

Yea, I feel bad about this tangent. I actually enjoyed the article, I just got annoyed about what I felt was a mischaracterization of the entire piece, leading to that mischaracterization dominating the discussion, I'm going to upvote the next comment..

[reillyse]

I'm very confused, why did this get downvoted ? If anything downvote the entire thread...

[reillyse]

I don't think he is saying that encrypted communication should be illegal. He's saying that spreading lies through encrypted channels should be stopped. It would not be hard for WhatsApp to prevent people from spreading bogus videos, because they have access to the unencrypted information before and after sending. So either preventing people from sharing misinformation or preventing people from reading the misinformation. That's separate from the argument about whether or not it's a good thing (I wouldn't see a problem with it personally).

[sxxahsuxh]

You know, Snopes has said that running a fact checking organisation is incredibly difficult. It's easy to see why, you have to:

1) decide what the definition of truth is

2) differentiate between subjectivity and objectivity

3) differentiate between misleading and outright incorrect

4) investigate every piece of media thoroughly

5) avoid bias

6) peer review

7) correct any mistakes

And this list is just off the top of my head.

So what bill gates is saying is that you have to do all this at a scale of 1 billion users, all controlled roughly by a few centralised organisations. I think Bill's words are still kind of stupid even with context. The way to fight all of these problems has always been education, and social welfare, and things the government should ACTUALLY be doing, not vetting encryption schemes.

[reillyse]

No one is saying we need to replace Snopes or emulate what they are doing. But if a platform like WhatsApp, Facebook or Twitter fact checked the most spread thousands videos per day, this problem would evaporate. You could do that with a team of 5 people. But you would need the will to do it, which is the part I think is lacking.

[Orou]

You'd think given the amount of time he's spent working on Coronavirus that he might see the distinction between treating the symptoms and treating the cause, so to speak.

I've yet to see anyone provide any kind of evidence that suggests censorship changes people's minds about conspiracies - if anything it seems to be doing exactly the opposite.

[slg]

He is thinking about the root cause, but it's at a higher level. We don't have to change people's minds about conspiracies if they are never exposed to those false conspiracies in the first place. This also applies to other corrupting influences like hate and bigotry.

Very few people are actively seeking to become radicalized into some fringe movement. It instead happens more passively or through active recruitment by another member. Negative content is normalized when it appears on a platform intertwined with mainstream content. People stop viewing it as fringe and it becomes easier for people to be passively radicalized or recruited. When that content is only available on sites dedicated to that content, people aren't going to stumble upon it without recognizing what it truly is. There are plenty of stories about people being accidentally radicalized by what they see on Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, etc. You aren't going to accidentally be radicalized by visiting Storm Front.

[reillyse]

I'm not sure there is evidence for or against. The argument I would make is not about censorship but preventing people from spreading lies. Even in the US where people hold free speech as some amazingly virtuous thing there are still curbs on speech, and what I'm saying is these limitations can be enforced in WhatsApp. Maybe you think that is censorship maybe you don't.

Also on that point, the freedom of speech in the US is strongly correlated with conspiracy theories, if only because 1) you can freely spread malicious lies and 2) it can be in a lot of people's interests to do so. I think it's always been in people's interest to spread lies, but I think recently in the very partisan climate in the US the media (and I'm including social media there) have happened upon the discovery that spreading this misinformation is actually very very good for business. It generates outrage in the opposite camp and keeps one side of the divide entertained.

[Orou]

> The argument I would make is not about censorship but preventing people from spreading lies.

Limiting speech is by definition censorship. There's no value judgement required as to the quality or veracity of that speech to determine whether or not restricting it counts as censorship.

> the freedom of speech in the US is strongly correlated with conspiracy theories

...and water is highly correlated with drowning. We don't say 'water bad, less water'. Just because one thing is a prerequisite for something else doesn't mean it is responsible for that other thing. We have to look to, like you point out, the political climate, as well as the lack of trust in institutions, the education system, and many other factors. Taking a complex issue around how information is shared at an unprecedented speed and scale and saying "just ban it" is, I think, a shallow assessment.

[jlokier]

> Limiting speech is by definition censorship.

Preventing speech is censorship.

But discouraging the spreading of a message at each spreader, for example by letting the spreader know the message is tagged as misleading by some large number of people before they spread it further is not censorship.

That may limit the rate, intensity, and real-world effect of some kinds of information, without fundamentally limiting the right to free speech.

[WarOnPrivacy]

Orou makes sound points.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>censorship but preventing people from spreading lies. Even in the US where people hold free speech as some amazingly virtuous thing there are still curbs on speech

There are relatively few constitutional curbs on speech. For example, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is legal by default but there are a few exceptions. ref: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

>I'm saying is these limitations can be enforced in WhatsApp.

1) Are you speaking of constitutional curbs on speech (because there aren't many)? Or are you talking about curbing speech that is believed to yield negative outcomes?

2) How, precisely, could these be enforced? I ask because automated moderation at scale is impossible to do responsibly and consistently. This will not change anytime soon.

3) Gates seems to be demonizing encryption. Few options can logically follow that position. Either Gates advocates replacing beneficial (to everyone) encryption with vulnerable (to everyone) encryption or he advocates banning encryption outright. It's difficult to see how either of these outcomes would benefit anyone (other than authoritarian governments and similarly repressive interests).

Even if Gates got his way on #3 (make everyone more vulnerable), #2 remains technically impossible.

[kebman]

The best way to fight the spread of lies is:

1. To spread truth

2. To hold people accountable for what they say

[wvenable]

It's never been easier to do #1 and never been harder to do #2.

[pcmaffey]

Cancel culture is #2.

[sukilot]

#2 how?

[kebman]

Well, for starters (given two-way communication) you can ask them for the sources of their claims, or at least demand that they defend the logic behind it. Then you can take it from there, and unravel the fallacies for them. Or if you want to be more polite, then carefully point the fallacies out for them and ask what they think about it themselves, when looking more closely at it. This would be the pedagogic approach, for those of you who have the patience.

And if it all falls apart (like it sometimes does when people are faced with their own failure), then you can at least ask them to give arguments instead of ad homs. I always try to be polite the first time around, but if they double down, I let them have it. But really, if it ever falls that low, it usually means that you already won, and so you don't really need to bother any further with the discussion.

My thinking is that most people who read such discussions can think for themselves, and so giving good arguments, unraveling faulty logic, and showing the truth, will always let truth and logic prevail in the end.

Usually you will never get a person to admit that he's wrong anyway, at least not to your face, so don't even worry about it! But people do change their minds about things. It usually happens in private, especially if they just facepalmed right into their own flawed logic. So if they do, never gloat and pretend like nothing happened, and rather commend them for telling the truth later on.

Perhaps I'm naïve, but I enjoy staying positive like that. :)

Mere faceless fake news and conspiracy theories, however, simply needs highlighting and debunking. There are several sites that specialize in that already, with various success. It's not perfect, but IMHO it's preferrable to outright censorship. Because who can be the final arbiter of truth anyway...

[nojs]

> It would not be hard for WhatsApp to prevent people from spreading bogus videos

The problem is there’s no agreed upon definition for what’s “bogus”. A while ago someone commented here with a list of statements ranging from obviously false obviously true to show how hard the problem is, I wish I could find it.

[hetspookjee]

I wish you could too, as it sounds very interesting!

[jlokier]

What an interesting idea!

Several commenters point out end-to-end encryption would prevent filtering or tagging messages.

But that's not true. The message analysis could be done at either endpoint without violating privacy.

Tagging (or removing) a message before you send/forward it, or after you receive it, with "the central message of this comment has been tagged as "probably a hoax" by hoaxtracker.com; check out this CDC notice <here> to learn more".

<here> does not need to be a URL which reveals much other than your general interest in the subject. But if that seems too revealing, it could already be already available as part of the endpoint's filtering data and readable locally.

Lots of people forward (retweet), or write a little something before resharing what is false or misleading information, not realising they're doing so. I would not be surprised if getting those tags, rarely enough to stand out, before they send the message would cause some people to hesitate and check/think a bit more before sending. Maybe rephrase their attached comment into a question rather than confident outrage.

Technically this is not much different from privacy-preserving spam filtering.

[imagiko]

Whoa wait what..is it really E2E if they can analyse the content before putting it through their network?

[panda88888]

Yes, they can analyze it in the app on user devices before it is encrypted and transmitted. The app on user decide need access to clear text in order to encrypt the message. Same on the receiving end. The app on user device can analyze the message once it is decrypted on user device.

[kshacker]

Wow did I not read something similar last couple of days about on-device machine learning being better than in the cloud machine learning and how Apple got that right. That's where this may also be going then if we follow your train of thought.

[jlokier]

On device is where you want it if it's going to analyse really private data, or something effectively your own (such as homomorphic encryption, or a link to your own computers elsewhere).

You're likely to feel so much happier, freer and easier sharing your most personal life datastream with an AI assistant, if you can be sure its most intimate analysis is just between the two of you.

It puts me in mind of the two kinds of AI in Manna: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna_(novel)

Coincidence or not, the dystopian AIs are somewhere in the cloud and work for someone else, while the utopian AIs are intimately personal to each user and work just for the user.

[throwaway287391]

Sure why not? As long as no data ever leaves the device unencrypted and the encrypted data can only be decrypted by the client at the other end. Of course you'd probably have to take the app's word for it that that's actually what it's doing if you don't have the source, but that's no different from current E2E encryption offerings from WhatsApp etc.

The part I'm not sure about is whether the on-device certification that the message is "clean" couldn't be (easily) spoofed. But it would probably help curb distribution of illegal material anyway.

[thu2111]

No, obviously not. The mental gymnastics involved here are impressive: the point of E2E encryption is to stop the service provider seeing or tampering with your messages. If they do that anyway it doesn't really matter how it's implemented. They could also just use a broken random number generator, or many other ways to implement the policies whilst still having encryption code in the product. It's the end result that matters, not the precise means of implementing it.

[imagiko]

Phew, agreed. I mean of course the company "can" read the message. If it does, I would love to see that shown by the app upfront, so I can avoid using it.

[api]

Analysis happens on either end, not the network or servers. Of course if both ends are "cracked" this doesn't work, but the goal is to stop mass spread of disinformation. Most people won't modify their client.

[jpsalm]

Of course the party that is doing the encryption can see the original content...

[paganel]

> But that's not true. The message analysis could be done at either endpoint without violating privacy.

This is stupid. Lots of naked baby photos get sent in my culture (Eastern-European country) in a most non-harmful way, i.e. from parents to the kids' grand-parents or even to the parents' close friends (especially from the mother to her friends). Your supposed filter will most probably block that social-sharing process (because it will see photos of naked children => very, very bad), not realising the above mentioned context.

[jlokier]

> This is stupid.

Truth is truth. Saying something is possible isn't the same as advocating that it be done, and it's useful to point out something is possible when people at first seem to think it is not.

Also, I was talking about messages, not baby photos, and with regard to misleading or false information, hoaxes etc that cause people to behave more dangerously to others during a pandemic. Saving lives, that sort of thing.

If it's giving the user advice that others have judged what they are retweeting to be a hoax or bad medical advice, that's not blocking, it's providing context. If they don't like it, they should be able to dial it down.

With regard to baby photos, if a network starts blocking those due to poor filtering, I would hope people switch over to another network that lets them share the photos.

> Your supposed filter will most probably block

I wasn't talking about filtering particularly, the emphasis was on providing a note to the user. Much like when Twitter attached a note to Trump's tweets.

In any case, the analysis I had in mind is not "skin tone filters" and that sort of nonsense. It's not meant to be thought police, working for someone else. It's meant to advise the users themselves to think again about some content. At least at the currently level of sophistication, that would be "we recognise this particular message or photo".

There are better and worse ways to implement it of course.

[benlivengood]

The problem is that spammers/shills would have full access to local filters and could tweak their messages to trivially bypass them.

[user9909]

This is a major privacy violation. Who would willingly install malware that censored their posts? I've never seen a generation beg for LESS rights.

[jlokier]

Something that reveals no information to others is not a privacy violation by definition.

(Although, something that blocks communication (which I don't think I agree with anyway) based on local analysis is an autonomy violation. But not a privacy violation.)

Something that tells you when you've just received a well documented hoax is not malware, it's probably useful, and most people will probably keep it switched on if the quality is consistently good.

By your logic, spam filtering (outgoing and incoming) is also malware, and a privacy violation. (Even though it protects people against malware, and indirectly protects privacy.)

Do you believe spam filtering is bad? I doubt it.

Yes, people ask for certain kinds of anlysis based message blocking all the time. We begged and pleaded for better spam filtering 20 years ago because the vast majority of messages were pure spam and it had made email difficult to use. It's a major reason people switched to Gmail, because other providers' spam filters weren't good enough.

I think the key feature most people would want in any kind of alerting, tagging or filtering is that it does what they want, rather than what the enemy wants, as it were. As people's preferences differ, that can only happen if it's configurable by them rather than blanket imposed. Things like ad blockers work this way - you can change the defaults if you want - and people seem to like those.

[Canada]

The main purpose of E2EE communication between willing participants is that the content of the communication is not checked, inspected, scanned, questioned, sampled, matched, filtered, modified, blocked, altered, or otherwise interfered with in any way whatsoever except that which is explicitly configured and consented to by a party to the conversation. (eg. anti-virus, anti-spam, group membership, etc)

That means no control of communication by the endpoint software either directly or indirectly between willing senders and recipients regardless of justification, and especially on the basis of whether or not data send from a willing sender to a willing receipient represents the "truth". The endpoint software vendor has no standing to judge that unless it's an opt-in anti-spam type feature.

[devcpp]

It would indeed be very hard, if WhatsApp's own claim that messages are encrypted end-to-end is true. Either way (and I disagree that this should be a separate discussion) all methods of global speech control are eventually used for evil.

[reillyse]

So first off, I think "WhatsApp" is being used in two ways here. 1) is WhatsApp the company or the central server and the other 2) is the app on someone's phone. When people say end to end they mean from the WhatsApp app on someone's phone to the other WhatsApp app on another person's phone with no way WhatsApp the company can read the message.

So what I'm saying is it's easy for the app on people's phone to filter or block sharing misinformation, because the app can see what the data is just like your eyes using the app can see what the data is. I'd also be fairly surprised if WhatsApp the app re-uploaded every single shared video, I'd say it's more likely they share a link or hash and encrypt that link in the message (but that is just a guess).

To your second point. All methods of global speech are eventually used for evil. All methods of communication are eventually used for evil, all methods of food preparation are eventually used for evil. There are some flaws in that argument.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"It would be hard for WhatsApp to prevent people from spreading bogus videos, because they have access to the unencrypted information before and after sending."

Facebook/WhatsApp claims WhatsApp messages are "end-to-end" encypted. For example, here

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...

Are the "end-to-end" encryption claims irrelevant if "they have access to the unecncypted information before and after sending"?

[usrusr]

They could put a tiny truth ministry module in the app and remain e2e:

"I'll be on my way home in five minutes!" [send]

"Sorry, our algorithms have detected that you were about to spread misinformation. Please contact support to reactivate your account. Premium support is available to subscribers of our membership programme"

I'm actually only half joking: while some local library code surely cannot tell truth from lies, that problem remains just as unsolved for arbitrary amounts of central effort. There's a reason truth ministries are a Bad Idea.

[Erlich_Bachman]

> I'm actually only half joking: while some local library code surely cannot tell truth from lies

Hey, the way GPT(-2, -3, ...)s are going, maybe soon we can have an offline classifier of truth. /s.

[b112]

I'm not sure he even said that.

When I look at the medium article, I see this:

And when you have [posts] encrypted, there is no way to know what it is. I personally believe government should not allow those types of lies or fraud or child pornography [to be hidden with encryption like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger].

Note the []? Was this added in by Medium? Gates as an edit after a read-and-OK-to-release? Did Gates have editorial input?

Regardless, I believe [] means 'edited afterwards for clarity'. But by whom?

I Googled, and found this:

https://wccftech.com/bill-gates-hate-encryption/

Yet in this case, there was no hatred of encryption, but picked quotes where he suggested that in one case, if you have the means, the government should be aided .. eg, a murderer.

There was another article on hackernews, where many lamented how much the media just spins, takes quotes out of context, basically does whatever it wants to. I wonder, how much of this are we seeing here?

(Note, Gates could very much be for back-doored encryption, but my point is, I don't think it's a clear position due to this medium article.. where that stances was in [] and added by someone after...)

[eanzenberg]

“Spreading lies.” Sure, when we have almighty God say what’s the truth and what isn’t, let us know.

[_prototype_]

And who defines what a "lie" is?

[sukilot]

Then why did he mention encryption?

> (I wouldn't see a problem with it personally

The POTUS said CNN is fake news, hundreds of times. So, as you say, people should be prevented from sharing and reading it?! There's no problem with that?! The very first item on the USA Bill of Rights isn't important?

[another_day]

If we extend this line of thinking, where does it lead?

The goal seems to be removing easy access to communications where governments can't listen for signs of dangerous behavior. But individuals can write custom software. Is there a stage in this arms race where one would need company/nation-state level resources to communicate in private?

Is there a potential future in which every piece of end-user software can't run without being signed by the government and is enforced at the CPU level? I'd hate to think this is even possible, but my (limited) understanding of secure enclaves makes me think there's a chance.

[teddyh]

> But individuals can write custom software.

Not for walled garden platforms. See also The Digital Imprimatur:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

[wittyreference]

Quick point: the entire controversial/nuanced part of that statement happened in the summary/paraphrase brackets, not his own words.

If you're sitting here going, "gosh, I wonder why someone that well-informed would say that?!", I'd point out that you don't actually know the full detail of what he said.

[H8crilA]

This is just Gates venting out, dude is sooo frustrated. Imagine doing as much as he did and still getting horseshit accusations about putting chips into people's bodies or whatever new nonsense they will come up in 6 months.

[matwood]

I agree, but Gates has to know that on balance e2e encryption is better than not. I too feel the same frustration to a much lesser degree when talking to family members.

[tptacek]

No, he doesn't have to know that. There is a deep divide on that question; it only seems like there isn't because this particular bubble we're in is essentially unified on it. That's not true of the wider world.

[sxxahsuxh]

I find it impossible to argue against encryption. People should have the tools to do things secretly. If you want to prevent all the bad things Bill talked about, attack those things, not the tools.

[gfxgirl]

Not that I agree with this but here's Nick Bostrom basically arguing for the end of encryption

https://www.businessinsider.com/nick-bostrom-mass-surveillan...

IIRC the argument is basically that as tech progresses it will get easier and easier for any one person to destroy the planet. According to Bostrom the only way to prevent that is no secrets and ubiquitous surveillance.

[sxxahsuxh]

None of what he said is correct and even if it was, it would be easier to destroy every piece of technology on earth than put collars around people to monitor what they do (According to his own idea of destruction, this is doubly true. He thinks destroying humanity can happen very easily so why can't it be easy to destroy devices?). I have trouble trusting this guy, and it's hard to resist calling him names. So I think I'm still going to argue that you cannot argue against encryption.

[thu2111]

Yes, it must really suck.

He doesn't seem to realise however that he's making this far worse.

Literally a core part of the Gates/COVID conspiracy theories goes like this:

"Bill Gates want to track everyone and is using a COVID vaccine as a trojan horse to do it"

Then he goes and says, gee, maybe it shouldn't be possible to say things Bill Gates doesn't like and the way to implement this is to ensure tech firms can monitor and track everything everyone is saying.

He's basically giving his critics an intellectual ammo dump with this interview. Dude doesn't seem self-aware, at all.

[breck]

That was my take too. Him being frustrated at the problem. Sort of like when Obama rolls his eyes when someone makes a birther joke.

I personally think the solution isn't to make it harder to share lies, but easier to share the truth. Sharing the truth is actually extremely labor intensive.

[WarOnPrivacy]

Gates seems to hint that the way to reduce lie-sharing is by eliminating safe encryption (replacing safe encryption with unsafe encryption). This is an inherently dangerous stance (to everyone except repressive authoritarians).

[therealdrag0]

Are you familiar with how much child pornography has ballooned from social media? I hadn’t until I listened to this podcast with NYT investigative journalist. Worth considering how serious the trade offs are https://samharris.org/podcasts/213-worst-epidemic/

[throwawaythekey]

I normally enjoy Sam but found that episode was voiced more by his inner parent than his usual hyper-rational self. Child porn is a scourge that should be destroyed but there was minimal discussion of the following that I would normally expect from Sam:

  - Relative merits of the alternatives to the banning/reduction of e2e encryption, e.g stronger police resources, education and community programs

  - Is there a strong link between the sharing of material and the creation of material?

To demonstrate the seriousness of the issue they cite a study that around 5% of the population have consumed child pornography. My own experience has been that unsavoury images can be posted in public places and none of the viewers intend to see the material. I suspect (and hope!) this is where the 5% comes from. This is not caused or solved by the masses having access to encryption.

I wouldn't be surprised if I was having this reaction just because of my idealogical support of encryption.

[therealdrag0]

Curious what does “reducing of e2e” refer to? What does reduction without elimination look like?

[WarOnPrivacy]

>Are you familiar with how much child pornography has ballooned from social media?

What does that have to do with encryption?

Also, sidebar:

Illegal pornography is captured and then hidden in an invisible electronic state, using powerful machines called computers. It's then transported and distributed across vast distances using a network of these powerful machines called "The Internet".

Together they're responsible for a bazillion-fold increase of illegal porn. It's imperative that legislation be passed that sabotages the basic functions of computers and renders them ineffective at performing their primary task.

[therealdrag0]

> what does that have to do with

Well they are currently able to scan media and maintain a fingerprint database of illegal content. If it’s encrypted this is not possible right? That’s a serious trade off.

[therealdrag0]

Sidebar: I don’t understand your flippancy. There literally are children to think about. Is your privacy really more important that children being raped? So yes “for the children”.

[eanzenberg]

So he has thin skin? Then get out if the public limelight.

[partyboat1586]

He's thinking from a pragmatic, utilitarian mindset. He has no principles surrounding privacy. If it has to be sacrificed to get the job done that's fine in his mind as long as it's a net positive.

[devcpp]

You can be pragmatic and utilitarian and support privacy and free use of encryption. I would instead qualify his mindset of shortsighted.

[nickff]

Anyone who rigorously follows an ethical framework will eventually be lead to some conclusion(s) they dislike; utilitarianism is no guarantee of satisfaction.

An honest utilitarian would be willing to share their calculations, which would be interesting to see, though I am not sure how you'd balance the interests in the cases described above.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>Anyone who rigorously follows an ethical framework will eventually be lead to some conclusion(s) they dislike

I've fallen into this trap. It led me to realize that, like ideologies, all frameworks are flawed. Assuming otherwise leads to positions that are starved for empathy and compassion - and that are ultimately counterproductive.

[partyboat1586]

His view is both utilitarian and short sighted. They don't always go together but they often do since there isn't time enough to work everything out from first principles.

[Fricken]

If everyone was short-sighted, privacy would be easier to enforce.

[partyboat1586]

Yes, that is certainly true and rather scary since people are quite short sighted and currently in a mood for doing things for the greater good while sacrificing individual freedoms.

[fartcannon]

Then he should lead by example.

[cubano]

That never happens...the powerful never expect to live in the conditions they advocate.

[lern_too_spel]

He presumably isn't using WhatsApp, so he is leading by example.

[sukilot]

That's totalitarian not utilitarian.

[lemmonii]

Absolutely, I fear he has the same lack of principles regarding bodily autonomy and forced vaccinations.

[gexla]

There's a lot to unpack in that quote and much of it is up to our interpretation.

I feel that the following statements could both be true.

1. Social media platforms should be able to monitor what content users are sharing on these platforms. Therefore these platforms maybe shouldn't have end-to-end encryption.

2. People need to have access to encryption for their own usage outside of social media platforms.

Where this might get tricky is in decentralized platforms which nobody owns. But we don't need to deal with this right now because it's not yet a problem. This will be a cat and mouse game always.

EDIT: Points 1 and 2 aren't necessarily my beliefs. I haven't put enough thought and research into it to have a more fully formed belief. These points are just my interpretation of what Gates could be saying. The context of encryption is in these platforms. He's not attacking encryption in general. Though other sources may reveal more information which could change my interpretation.

[eanzenberg]

>>> Social media platforms should be able to monitor what content users are sharing on these platforms.

Then you’re not a platform, you are a publisher and should be held accountable for what you choose to publish. A platform is literally that: a platform for use by users as they see intended. I’m not talking about trolls, spammers, hackers and those who post illegal content. When platforms move down to editorialize content, they cease to be defined as a platform.

[dwaltrip]

Section 230 allows internet companies to control which content is shown on their platforms and also gives them liability protection against being held accountable for content created by users.

Decent article about section 230: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/business/section-230-inte...

[gexla]

Interesting. Facebook did argue for being a publisher in one case so that they could limit their liability for defamation. But that move would then limit their protections as a platform (as mentioned by another user as a reply to your comment.)

[th0ma5]

Kinda rich he spearheaded his own control of what people do with his bytes to now say others can't. I wish it wasn't true that enabling something like this would compromise all of our collective security.

[bg24]

Problem (lie, fraud, child pornography) is real. IMHO, Bill is not proposing a solution to disable encryption. He is simply saying that government should not allow these activities encrypted. Industry, governments, academics should figure out the best solution.

[eanzenberg]

Sure, but then just argue:

Lie, fraud, child porn is real. Government should install 24-7 cameras in every private room of every citizen to curb all illegal activity.

[brandonmenc]

> What motivates a statement like this?

Because billionaires don't need encryption to keep themselves safe. The billions take care of that just fine.

[zurfer]

What motivates wired.com to put so much of such a controversial statements in brackets? What did he actually say?

[tehjoker]

He's a billionaire. The government defends his billions from being redistributed by angry dying people. He doesn't want potential revolutionaries to be able to communicate easily.

[goldenchrome]

This is the right answer. HN likes to think of Bill Gates as a techophile because that’s where he started, but today he’s foremost a billionaire with more to lose than to gain.

[kabacha]

Isn't he very vocal about the fact that rich should be taxed heavily?

[jkestner]

Vocal, as in he did the usual billionaire dissembling about how Warren's wealth tax would take 90% of his fortune and kill innovation. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth-warren-would-love-to-...

[evan_]

and of course 10% of his fortune is still more than all the money made in the lifetime of every person Who will read this combined

[jkestner]

And Warren's actual proposed rate, 3% for everything over $1 billion, is outpaced by the 11% annual rate of return for the S&P 500 over the last 30 years. A wealth tax would just slow down how fast the rich get richer.

[bobsil1]

Those dependent on federal gov biz cannot afford to openly oppose fed talking points (MS, SpaceX, telecoms).

[paganel]

Because they know what awaits them if they try to leave the "chosen path" (a path that also helps them remain billionaires, so not that difficult a moral compromise to make). See Joseph Nacchio [1]:

> Joseph P. Nacchio is an American executive who was chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Qwest Communications International from 1997 to 2002. Nacchio was convicted of insider trading during his time heading Qwest. He claimed in court, with documentation, that his was the only company to demand legal authority for surreptitious mass surveillance demanded by the NSA which began prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

[dionidium]

> What motivates a statement like this?

The simple explanation is that there exist people who in good faith disagree with you about encryption.

[Spooky23]

Perhaps you should take pause and reflect on the broader issue Gates is talking about.

Social media is destroying our society in front of our eyes. Identifying how and why that is happening is something that matters too. The hardline techie position that all communications must be completely encrypted with obfuscated origins is a position whose consequences are not fully understood.

[3131s]

Encryption has nothing to do with the destructiveness of social media.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"As someone who has built your life on science and logic, I'm curious what you think when you see so many people signing onto this anti-science view of the world.

Well, strangely, I'm involved in almost everything that anti-science is fighting. I'm involved with climate change, GMOs, and vaccines. The IRONY [emphasis added] is that it's DIGITAL [emphasis added] social media that allows this kind of titillating, oversimplistic explanation of, "OK, there's just an evil person, and that explains all of this."

Well, you're friends with Mark Zuckerberg. Have you talked to him about this?

After I said this publicly, he sent me mail. I like Mark, I think he's got very good values, but he and I do disagree on the trade-offs involved there. The lies are so titillating you have to be able to see them and at least slow them down."

Gates has a reason to be against the spreading of information on social media because recently he became a target of conspiracy theories spread on social media.

If encryption is an imediment to stoping people from spreading theories about him, then he obviously has a reason to be against encryption when used to spread these theories.

Maybe what is more interesting is when he uses the word irony right before he states he is against encryption.

What does he mean?

What is ironic about the fact that it is "digital social media" that allows "oversimplistic explanation[s]"?

HN readers can probably make better guesses than me. Disgreement with the guesses I make is expected.

For example, perhaps it is ironic because:

He has been such a strong proponent of using computers for anything and everything.

Gates was initially a skeptic of the internet, but later believed Microsoft's "internet strategy" was of primary importance. This led to projects like Internet Explorer and MSN. The company is now preparing to spend billions to acquire a social media company.

In amassing the fortune that allows him to pursue these philanthropic causes he and his company presented countless titillating, oversimplistic explanations of the value of using computers for seemingly anything. He wanted us to believe that the computer (running Windows of course) was the great enabler.

I have no idea what he meant and I am grasping at straws.

[kerng]

You are interpreting what he said to fit your understanding, he "literally" did not say what you describe as conclusion.

Also, sad to see the actual meaningful content of the article gotten less attention.

[lern_too_spel]

Where did he say government should read everyone's private messages? Governments can access my security box at the bank. That is different from governments rifling through it all the time.

[thekyle]

In practice there is no scalable way for the government to check everyone's security box every second. However, it is possible for them to scan every message sent in real time and past leaks have shown that they will if given the opportunity.

[phatfish]

I think that's the problem. We need to be able to trust they wont, in the current climate there is no chance of that.

If there were strong privacy laws defining how and when data could be collected and accessed then in theory I'm happy for the right people to have access to investigate criminal acts. Under a warrant that a judge has reviewed.

But currently it seems to be a free-for-all with tech companies being the ones in control of most of the data.

[nradov]

There is the legal issue, and also the technical issue. Even if the law sets strict limits on decryption that will become moot if the key is leaked.

[lern_too_spel]

> However, it is possible for them to scan every message sent in real time

Gates didn't suggest that the messages be sent unencrypted through government-controlled message routers either. Presumably, he is promoting systems that work like MS Teams or Slack.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Gates didn't suggest that the messages be sent unencrypted through government-controlled message routers either.

Gates attacked encryption. Nothing beneficial (to the public) follows that.

[lern_too_spel]

> Gates attacked encryption.

Where did he do that? Slack and Microsoft Teams also use encryption, and he wasn't opposed to the method they use it.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>Where did he [attack encryption]?

Right here. "And when you have [posts] encrypted, there is no way to know what it is. I personally believe government should not allow those types of lies or fraud or child pornography [to be hidden with encryption like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger]."

Unless you're alleging the stuff in the brackets isn't attributable to Gates and doesn't reflect his position on encryption.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>Where did he say government should read everyone's private messages?

He is demonizing encryption. There are few options that logically follow that stance.

[akshaybhalotia]

Just to make it clear, this seems very much like Gates to me as an Indian. He has bank rolled several very problematic studies in India in collusion with the fascist (at least super right wing) government, including the very controversial biometric national ID (AADHAAR) project. They were quite literally holding newborns hostages[1].

[1]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/mps-largest-...

[WhompingWindows]

Do you think the child sexual abuse epidemic is empowered by encrypted communication?

[eanzenberg]

Much illicit trade is empowered by encryption and bitcoin. I would bet at least 25% of bitcoin transactions are nefarious.

[thingymajig]

If you want to completely eradicate crime one way to do it would be to completely eradicate privacy.

Would you sacrifice your privacy if it could eliminate child pornography? The theory is hard to say no to, but in practice that kind of power has never worked out. If we want to retain privacy we have to accept some amount of crime going unnoticed.

[taberiand]

Such a premise begs the question that those given the power would sincerely use it to shutdown child exploitation and other crime.

It seems to me that there are many instances where child exploitation is ignored when it is politically convenient such that giving up our privacy wouldn't be of benefit to society, and would be largely to our detriment.

[kabacha]

You somehow imply that it's impossible to get rid of crime without getting rid of privacy which is an absurd claim.

Finally if you take a look at pure math - most of worlds suffering, evil and death is inflicted by world's governments. You'd put your trust in that over individuals?

[thingymajig]

I won't just imply it, I'll say it too: It's impossible to stop ALL crime while also retaining privacy.

I also said in my (very short) comment that such an extreme level of power never works out in practice. So we need to accept that as long as privacy exists, some amount of crime will. We can't eliminate privacy without giving someone too much power.

[sudosysgen]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? That is the issue.

[eanzenberg]

This is a general debate either for or against more government. It’s why the libertarian movement is closely related to open source, free speech, encryption and bitcoin.

[Gatsky]

Not sure how one could make such an ill-considered comment. It is always useful to ask 'cui bono?'. Who benefits the most from e2e? Is it the individual? Or is it Facebook and friends, who can use it to drastically lower content moderation costs, legal liability and the general smell from transmitting harmful content, while making a fortune. To me, they are doing what all 'great' capitalist enterprises manage to do, which is make someone else pay for the negative externalities of their business. For other examples see the fossil fuel industry, processed food, and the grandaddy of them all, big tobacco. Gates is not swallowing the koolaid.

[7leafer]

The desire to own all the information to own the whole world.

And it's obvious that this is not "his" statement, but a statement from the mouth of a puppet who is absolutely dependent on spreading the agenda in order to maintain his status quo of an "independent billionaire"

[therealdrag0]

Are you familiar with how much child pornography has ballooned from social media? I hadn’t until I listened to this podcast with NYT investigative journalist. Worth considering how serious on of the trade offs are... https://samharris.org/podcasts/213-worst-epidemic/

[sxxahsuxh]

So, let's walk through this. You have to either have a bunch of people look at child pornography and vet out all that content, or train a neural network on gigabytes worth of child pornography. Either way you want to fight child pornography by collecting and viewing tons and tons of it, as opposed to, I don't know, preventing children from being sex trafficked? Not letting children marry adults? The biggest porn website on the planet still has trouble solving this problem. Everyone in this thread including bill gates has assumed that this is an easy one to solve.

This is so asinine, especially because bill lumped this problem in with fact checking, which is in a completely different realm of problems.

[cm2187]

Even on Covid. He warned in Feb that covid could result in 10 millions deaths in Africa, when we knew already from the Chinese numbers that the demographics of covid deaths was massively skewed toward 70yo+, and Africa has a very young population. I classify him in the FUD spreading category.

[jeromegv]

Here's an article here for someone who cares about the context (which you carefully avoided): https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-warns-coronavirus...

It wasn't about the demographic, but about the fact that their healthcare system would get overloaded, which impacts a lot of treatments for everybody else.

Also the problem with predictions of epidemic is that if you actually do a better job than expected at confinement / protection measures, then predictions are meaningless. You "could have" a lot of bad things happen, but once you do things right, they disappear. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have done those things, it just means that people have been warned properly. He said, if they get hit severely, impact would be much bigger than in the west. He didn't say the 10 million was a done deal.

[IkmoIkmo]

Why not? Africa has almost 1.3 billion people. The notion 0.8% could die from a pandemic which, let loose, can infect virtually everyone and has a 1% casualty rate is not so strange. Obviously measures were taken, but it's not so weird to talk about a scenario in which no measures are taken, in February when many countries had no clue what was coming to them and didn't take it too seriously yet.

[thu2111]

which, let loose, can infect virtually everyone

No virus in history has infected virtually everyone, and there are lots of experts calling foul on that particular assumption right now. It's baked into epidemiological models but those models are always wrong, and the assumption of very high susceptible populations is being floated in several papers as one of the possible reasons.

[carpo]

Is this the quote you based your classification on? Seems like he is talking generally about the threat of a pandemic causing 10 million or more deaths. He also mentions Asia.

"This is a huge challenge, we’ve always known the potential for a naturally caused, or intentionally caused, pandemic is one if the few things that could disrupt health systems and economies and cause more than 10 million excess deaths.

This could be particularly if it spreads in areas like sub-Saharan Africa and some Asia, it could be very very dramatic.

We’re doing the constant science to provide the tools to do the diagnosis to provide vaccines, to provide therapeutics and hopefully contain this epidemic, but it’s potentially a very bad situation."

(found this here -> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/15/coronovirus-bill...)

[prox]

In The begin of February there were still a lot of unknowns, plus I have never seen these claims. So... citation needed.

[threatripper]

For Africa it's just "one more disease" that probably won't even show up much in mortality numbers because there's just so many other slow disasters at the same time.