These two californian doctors have their own opinion.

Author: Stephen ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 68
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,320
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
      Dr Dan Erickson &  Dr Massihi

    "there is something else going on"



    Elon Musk blasts YouTube for banning Californian doctors' video that claimed physicians are being pressurized into putting Coronavirus on death certificates and urged an end to shutdowns


    • Critics have slammed YouTube for saying clip 'violated community guidelines' 
    • In it, Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi criticized California's shutdown
    • They also claimed that doctors are being pressured into boosting death tolls  
    • They presented statistics which many claimed were skewed and inaccurate
    • But Elon Musk shared their video and said they made 'good points'  
    • YouTube said their viewpoint disputed 'local health authority' guidance 
    • But critics blast YouTube for 'censoring' the video after it got 5 million views 
    • They also claimed it was a sign Big Tech is trying to control information  
    • YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said videos against WHO policy will be taken down
    • Facebook and Twitter have also been criticized over 'misinformation' policies

    2.2k
    View comments

    Elon Musk and a host of critics have slammed YouTube for removing a video of two doctors suggesting COVID-19 death tolls are being boosted and urging an end to lockdowns because they do more harm than good.
    The site took down the video of news conference featuring Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who run a private urgent-care clinic in Bakersfield, California, on Monday because they claim it violated their user policy by disputing health officials.
    But the move has been blasted as censorship and a worrying sign of big tech companies trying to control information during the pandemic and quashing free speech. 
    Social media giants Facebook and Twitter are also coming under increasing scrutiny for removing posts that they say contain health misinformation or calls to break stay-at-home orders. 
    The hour-long video with Drs Erickson and Massihi suggesting stay-at-home orders are damaging drew a massive audience, garnering more than five million views before it was removed.
    Using testing stats from their urgent care centers, they argue that the mortality rate for coronavirus is minuscule and that lockdowns are disruptive to normal healthcare provision, the functioning of healthy immune systems and are devastating to the economy. 
    The doctors also share anecdotes, which they say come from colleagues in hospitals, claiming that there is pressure to add COVID-19 as a cause of death to unrelated fatalities to artificially boost the death toll.  
    'It's time to open back up. The science says it is. The models we've been using from predictions, to predict the amount of disease, are not accurate,' Erikson said in the press conference.
    Tesla CEO Musk, an increasingly outspoken critic of lockdowns, shared the video on Twitter before it was taken down, adding the comment, 'Docs make good points.'

    California doctors call COVID-19 shutdowns 'disruptive' to healthcare

    'This. Is. Censorship. On what is arguably the most important media platform in the United States,' tweeted Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter who has emerged as one of the strongest skeptics of the lockdowns.
    In a blistering opening monologue on Tuesday night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson also railed against the 'ludicrous' measures by big tech companies to control what they call misinformation during the pandemic.
    'When this is all over, it's likely we'll look back on this moment, what YouTube just did, as a turning point in the way we live in this country, a sharp break with 250 years of law and custom,' Carlson said.
    'The doctors' video was produced by a local television channel. It was, in fact a mainstream news story,' Carlson continued. 'The only justification for taking it down was that the physicians on-screen had reached different conclusions than the people currently in charge.' 

    Last week, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki told CNN that 'anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.'
    'Consider that for a moment,' Carlson responded. 'As a matter of science, it's ludicrous. Like everyone else involved in global pandemic policy, the WHO has been wrong in its recommendations. In January, WHO told us that coronavirus could not spread from person-to-person. In March, they told us that face masks didn't work. Those are lies and they were welcome on Google's platforms.'
    Former CNN producer Steve Krakauer said in his Fourth Watch media newsletter that this was an 'egregious censorship effort on the part of YouTube' that should make all journalists concerned. 
    He added: 'YouTube can take down this video, of course. But should they? Absolutely not.
    'These doctors weren't calling for people to cough on other citizens. They weren't even questioning whether injecting disinfectant might be a good idea. 
    'They were using data to suggest a Sweden model of eased lockdown may be effective. That's not damaging to the public to watch.' 




  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,402
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Stephen
    OK, so, when most of professional medicine is saying one thing and two doctors are saying the opposite, we have to vet the doctors a little first.

    In this case, the Drs motivations are highly corrupt- they together own a chain of businesses in Bakersfield that are tanking due to the coronavirus- these two doctors are losing a lot of money because they don't have the ventilators, surgical capacity, etc to treat coronavirus patients and people who don't have coronavirus are staying away from ERs as much as they can.   While these two doctors have the right to express any opinion they wish they do have certain professional and ethical obligations that they are clearly violating here.  Even if these drs were 100% honest in their findings, they would still be obligated to to submit their data for professional review, especially since they have a financial stake in the results.  Instead, they're publicizing on youtube and FOX and not disclosing their money interests when they do.  That failure alone makes any results they publicize highly suspect.

    Here is the opinion of these drs colleages- the two main prof organization of ER doctors condemning Erickson and Massihi with as strong language as you might get from a group like this:

    These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.
    I  rather doubt whether either of these youtube personalities well ever be allowed to work in a real ER again.


    Joint Statement issued on April 27, 2020:
    The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.

    COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.
     
    Additional Information
    While ACEP believes strongly that practicing emergency physicians have valuable insight into the COVID-19 pandemic, specialists in Immunology, Infectious Disease, and Epidemiology, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, are the most qualified at interpreting this data and making representations.
    The data cited by Drs. Erickson and Massihi is extrapolated from a small population to the state of California, resulting in misleading conclusions regarding the mortality of COVID-19. Their data is flawed and represents selection bias. In order for data to be extrapolated to a population, the investigator must assure that the populations are homogeneous, and in this case they are not.
    For example, it is stated in the video that in one area of California, there is a 12 percent positive test rate. That is then erroneously used to conclude that there are almost 4.7 million cases in the entire state of California. But that framing only looks at the 12 percent of people who had access to a test. California is a large, diverse state, and it is unlikely that any one area will be representative of the state at large. As testing nationally is limited, there likely is a larger pool of people who have yet to receive a test but have a high probability of having the disease or who are asymptomatic and potentially contagious. What we do know is that the number of cases in most states is growing. The same extrapolation was used in his New York example, when again, the only people tested were those who were symptomatic. Because of the limited availability of testing and the as yet unknown sensitivity and specificity of the various tests, we cannot use this data to extrapolate to larger populations.
    The speaker discusses the fatality rate in New York and states that there are 19,000 deaths out of 19 million people in New York, so New York has a fatality rate of 0.1 percent. However, he is concluding a fatality rate based on the total population—both symptomatic and healthy, which is a contradiction to how he calculated the fatality rate in California. Further there are a large number of patients who have yet to recover, and many of them whom remain on life support or are likely to die.
    Another concerning misuse of data include comparisons to the flu despite different methodology for calculating deaths. Comparing flu deaths and COVID-19 deaths are apples and oranges until the same methodology of calculating flu deaths is applied to COVID-19 deaths. Additionally, final flu data is calculated after the season is over. The physician in the video is comparing two months of COVID-19 data, which again at this point is incomplete. It is not scientifically valid to make a comparison to the completed six-month flu season.
    There are other faulty data issues in their video, including basic scientific errors that call the conclusions into question (e.g., they call the flu and COVID-19 “DNA” viruses when COVID-19 and flu are both RNA viruses).
    Most concerning for ACEP, they used their “emergency physician” titles to provide credence to their opinions. In any statement that proports to be based on science, data need to be carefully analyzed and the conclusions limited by the data source and integrity. By presenting themselves as authorities, and without fully disclosing their conflict of interest, they were misleading the public.
    This is not to say that individuals should not have their own opinions, or that their opinions will not turn out to be true. Emergency physicians should speak those opinions in controversies such as this. However, in doing so, we must be careful not to overstate our qualifications, particularly when we are in domains outside of medicine. As emergency physicians, we should be all too familiar with other specialties and providers who feel qualified to practice in our domain without our level of education. Opinions vary on one’s experience; emergency physicians in New York City are likely to feel differently.
    ACEP feels strongly the traction and popularity of these dangerous conclusions had the potential to lead to bad policy decisions and public health outcomes.

  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,194
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @oromagi
    Why were they banned? Doctors can have different opinions. Should separate opinions be censored?

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,967
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    youtube has been a member of the censorship party for years. This isn't news.
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51658341

    According to a high court, the assertion that people have the right to express themselves freely on YouTube without moderation is fallacious. It isn't a "public forum," it's a private company. The ultimately have jurisdiction. I'm not saying it's right. It's just the status quo. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,967
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @blamonkey

    Youtube's loophole is going to be quietly removed, likely after the 2020 election, so this kind of censorship phase will probably be relegated to the history books once the lawyers start knocking on the door.
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @Greyparrot
    Section 230 states the following:
    "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
    For example, Google is not liable to any of its search results. In all likelihood, there would probably be more, not less, moderation to guarantee that information displayed in search results conforms to the law. Think of all the illegal material on YouTube, Google, and other repositories for information a la social media sites like Reddit. Think about websites that allow for comment sections and user-made content. People in charge of these websites are currently not responsible for every iota of user-generated content, but sans 230 protections, we might see a spark of zealous moderating to defend against defamation claims. Wikipedia has suffered from those in the past, and 230 protections were an integral defense against spurious litigation which targeted the website for comments made by users which said rude things about the plaintiff (1). 

    Also, the method by which "bias" is determined via Hawley's bill is problematic.

    "Under his bill, to refuse certification, the FTC need not show that the platform actively engaged in moderation practices designed to hurt a viewpoint, but rather that its practices “disproportionately restrict[] or promote[] access to, or the availability of, information from a political party, political  candidate, or political viewpoint.” This means that, if a platform wants to moderate user content, it will have to take a rigid stance against all content so as to ensure that the FTC decides, by clear and convincing evidence, that the platform did not moderate it in a politically biased manner. In other words, legitimate speech — conservative and liberal alike — will suffer because platforms will worry that failing to remove questionable content may appear to disproportionately affect a viewpoint (2)"

    This loophole might not be passed in the current state.

    Sources
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,402
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @ILikePie5
    Why were they banned?

    They weren't.  No actions have been taken by YouTube vs either doctor.

    The original vid was posted by 23ABC News and that specific video was removed as a violation of YouTube's Community Guidelines which 23ABC promised not to do when they started a channel on YouTube and signed a contract agreeing to abide by the rules.  23ABC's channel is still available to the public and no other videos have been taken down.

    Any other copies of the press conference can remain on YouTube and of course they are out there by the thousands.  The distinction is between random people saying "hey, why is this happening?" vs. an accredited local News channel promulgating false data specific to a local public health emergency.  YouTube doesn't want people who depend on YouTube for their local news to mistake these doctors' willful deception for public health officials or even professional doctors who prioritize public safety.

    YouTube's press statement says,

    “We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local healthy authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance," said the statement. "However, content that provides sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic (EDSA) context is allowed -- for example, news coverage of this interview with additional context. From the very beginning of the pandemic, we’ve had clear policies against COVID-19 misinformation and are committed to continue providing timely and helpful information at this critical time.”

    Doctors can have different opinions.
    Sure.  But any doctor certified by a State medical board is required to follow specific guidelines when disseminating research in his professional capacity.   Every MD in America, is under some specific professional obligations toward public safety and telling the complete truth.  These jokers may lose their medical license but it sure looks like they are going to lose their Accelerate Urgent Care franchise and almost certainly their malpractice insurance (which generally means the end of any career as a doctor).


    Should separate opinions be censored?
    The doctors opinions have nothing to do with YouTube's decision.  The problem was that 23abc ran the press conference as if it was a news report, which gullible people might mistake as factual, non-harmful, vetted information, which this wasn't.  You can watch a thousand videos of what these doctors said but YouTube perceives real harm in mistaking what they say for the truth.

    Let's pretend that there is an active shooter in Times Square.  Every public safety official is telling people to avoid the Times Square area but NBC is interviewing two security guards dressed like cops who are telling everybody that Times Square is where the public should take shelter and that everybody in mid-town should run to Times Square as fast as possible.  When NBC posts that video on YouTube, does YouTube have an ethical obligation to remove that video and at least point out that information will get people killed?  or does Freedom of Speech mandate that those New Yorkers must be lured to slaughter while YouTube broadcasts disinformation without comment?

    The ethical dilemma here is a little less dramatic but the number of potential deaths and magnitude of these doctor's irresponsibility is essentially the same.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,967
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Social media still has yet to ban the tweets from CNN and the WHO claiming Covid was not transmissible person to person, so the argument that social media gives a fuck about saving lives instead of blindly being invested in an agenda is pure bullshit.

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,402
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    The trouble with always believing everything Trump claims is that Trump is the most prolific liar in human history.  Everything Trump believes today is subject to present need and will likely change tomorrow.


    One of Trump’s key claims is that the WHO misled the world about the virus’ ability to spread from person to person.

    Trump, April 14: The WHO failed to investigate credible reports from sources in Wuhan that conflicted directly with the Chinese government’s official accounts. There was credible information to suspect human-to-human transmission in December 2019, which should have spurred the WHO to investigate, and investigate immediately. Through the middle of January, it parroted and publicly endorsed the idea that there was not human-to-human transmission happening despite reports and clear evidence to the contrary.
    Trump later stated that the WHO said the virus “was not communicable.” 

    While there is a debate about what was known when — and it seems clear that China knew more than what it reported — the WHO never said the virus was not communicable. Instead, the agency always considered the possibility, even if it also shared information from China that found no evidence of such transmission.
    Trump’s mention of mid-January is likely a reference to an early morning Jan. 14 tweet from the WHO. “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities,” it said, “have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

    Lack of evidence, especially of “preliminary” results, does not mean the WHO was saying the novel coronavirus could not be spread between people.
    The same day as the tweet, the WHO cautioned that there might be some human-to-human transmission of the virus among family members in China.

    “From the information that we have it is possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission, potentially among families,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, the acting head of WHO’s emerging diseases unit, in a Jan. 14 news briefing. “But it is very clear right now that we have no sustained human-to-human transmission.”

    According to a timeline of events, Van Kerkhove, who is also the WHO’s technical lead for the COVID-19 response, also said that human-to-human transmission wouldn’t be unexpected, since that is what occurs with SARS and MERS, which are also coronaviruses.

    Knowledge about those other viruses was also the basis for the WHO to recommend in its Jan. 10 technical guidance that health workers take precautions to avoid transfer of the virus from patients.

    The day before, the WHO did report information it received from China about the virus, saying in a Jan. 9 statement, “According to Chinese authorities, the virus in question can cause severe illness in some patients and does not transmit readily between people.” But the organization also said “more comprehensive information is required to understand the current status and epidemiology of the outbreak,” and that “[f]urther investigations” were also needed to determine “modes of transmission.”

    By Jan. 19, the WHO was more definitive, saying in a tweet that there was “some limited human-to-human transmission occurring between close contacts.”
     
    And on Jan. 20, the WHO’s Western Pacific Region iterated the point. “It is now very clear from the latest information that there is at least some human-to-human transmission of #nCoV2019,” a tweet explained. “Infections among health care workers strengthen the evidence for this.”

    A follow-up tweet also indicated the possibility of viral transmission that continues, rather than dying out in a small group of people. “In addition, info about newly reported #nCoV2019 infections suggests there may now be sustained human-to-human transmission,” the WHO’s Western Pacific Region said. “But more information and analysis are needed on this new virus to understand the full extent of human-to-human transmission and other important details.”

    After a WHO delegation visited Wuhan on Jan. 20 and 21, the organization also issued a statement, saying that “[d]ata collected through detailed epidemiological investigation and through the deployment of the new test kit nationally suggests that human-to-human transmission is taking place in Wuhan.”

    China publicly confirmed human-to-human transmission on Jan. 20, which included transfer between family members and to health care workers.
    It is now obvious that the novel coronavirus spreads quite well in humans. But should the WHO have known that sooner? That’s exceedingly difficult to know, and as we explained earlier, the agency is dependent on countries to give it accurate information.

    We can, however, provide some insight into Trump’s more specific claim that there was “credible information” to suggest human-to-human transmission in December 2019. That’s difficult to reconcile with the calendar because the WHO wasn’t notified about the cluster of unusual pneumonia cases in Wuhan until the last day of the month. The agency requested more information from China on Jan. 1.

    It has since come out that Taiwan, which is not a WHO member country because it is not recognized by China, claims it sent an email to the WHO asking about human-to-human transfer on Dec. 31. 

    As an April 11 Reuters report explains, Taiwan wrote to the WHO because it was concerned about news reports on seven cases that indicated China was keeping patients in isolation. Even though it did not use the words “human-to-human transmission” in its email — which the WHO has noted — the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control has said that the language still should have been clear.

    “Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease,” the group said in a statement. “However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.”

    Given that the WHO had just learned about the outbreak, and had no solid information to go on either, there’s nothing to support Trump’s claim that there was “credible evidence” that early on.

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,402
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    One might assume from Trump's 4/14 tweet that he was misled by WHO's report of Jan 14- that he took no action because the WHO was telling him (via tweet) that China had not yet verified human to human transmission.  But Trump is forgetting or covering up the fact that his own National Security Council advised  him of a very high risk of pandemic (human to human transmission) on Jan 3rd.  Trump's daily intel also advised the president that China was lying about how fast the virus was spreading.  Even if Trump was making decisions based on his faulty comprehension of  WHO tweets on Jan 14, he can't pretend that the White House hadn't been flashing daily pandemic warnings for at least ten days prior. 

    The POTUS has access to the finest intelligence gathering in human history.    Xi Jinping showed no sign of knowing about the epidemic until Jan 9 (who knows for sure), suggesting that it is at least possible that Trump had better intel on coronavirus than Xi that first week of January.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,194
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @oromagi
    Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities,” it said, “have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
    No clear evidence means not there yet or not guilty in a court of law. You’re arguing semantics with a predisposed bias against Trump. You can argue that your way of interpreting something is true, but that doesn’t take away my interpretation that there wasn’t enough evidence to suggest it was transmissible through humans from the World Health Organization composed of arguable the finest doctors in the world.

    Something along the lines of what your interpretation states in my realm would look like: “It’s possible that human to human transmission is possible so be careful; we are still investigating. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,967
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    It's total bullshit because WHO supporters have to make the case that Trump needed to ignore the false statements from the WHO on Jan 14 while still taking the WHO seriously.

    You can't support WHO and also try to explain why Trump should have ignored them.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,402
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    This is the last post I'll make re: GP's diversionary tactic.   Let's talk about the lies of the two greedy  doctors or get a new topic.

    --> @oromagi
    Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities,” it said, “have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”
    No clear evidence means not there yet or not guilty in a court of law.
    That's right.  So why does GP think this tweet should be banned?  Why does Trump blame this for his total inaction when his own threat assessment team had already told Trump that the virus was coming and it was going to be bad 11 days earlier than this tweet?  Trump knew SARS2 was infectious on Jan 3rd so why is he pretending to pay any attention to a WHO tweet on Jan 14th saying "we just don't know yet? "  Scientists had to take a couple of weeks to establish inter-human transmission on a molecular basis but the CIA can see Wuhan closing hospitals and digging graves on satellite.  Unlike scientists, the spies told Trump the trouble was coming, maybe even before Xi knew trouble was coming.  Why is GP buying Trump's lie?

    You’re arguing semantics with a predisposed bias against Trump.
    Yes.  SEMANTICS  is "a branch of linguistics studying the meaning of words."  I am evaluating what you say and responding.  If you are not also arguing semantics you are on the wrong website.

    ARGUING SEMANTICS is "a derogatory term used by one party in an argument to resist the other party's attempt to question the terms and language used in the argument.  This is generally done because the current terms favor his / her position.
    In this situation the first party will often feign impatience -- "Come on, let's stop quibbling about semantics and get on with things!
    "

    all predisposition is bias, all bias presdispotion

    Yes, I consider Trump the second worst peril in American history, less than secession but worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11 or assassinations, depressions or Nixon.  All alert and loyal Americans have a hard predisposition towards Trump these days. Trump doesn't take second place in loyalty to anyone or anything, even maybe especially America.

    You can argue that your way of interpreting something is true, but that doesn’t take away my interpretation that there wasn’t enough evidence to suggest it was transmissible through humans from the World Health Organization composed of arguable the finest doctors in the world.
    or we could just tell the truth. 

    • The US intelligence community was warning President Donald Trump about an impending pandemic as early as January 3, The Washington Post reported.
    • Officials were giving Trump classified briefings on the matter at the same time the president was publicly downplaying the risk of the novel coronavirus and insisting the US was well prepared to handle the outbreak.
    • "The system was blinking red," a US official told The Post. "Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were — they just couldn't get him to do anything about it."
    Something along the lines of what your interpretation states in my realm would look like: “It’s possible that human to human transmission is possible so be careful; we are still investigating. 
    It was a careful diplomatic tweet by an international diplomatic team but the only point you need to understand is that tweet had no influence on Trump's decision making.

    "In a report to the director of national intelligence, the State Department’s epidemiologist wrote in early January that the virus was likely to spread across the globe, and warned that the coronavirus could develop into a pandemic. Working independently, a small outpost of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Center for Medical Intelligence, came to the same conclusion. Within weeks after getting initial information about the virus early in the year, biodefense experts inside the National Security Council, looking at what was happening in Wuhan, started urging officials to think about what would be needed to quarantine a city the size of Chicago."  NY Times, April 11th

    By the time WHO sent that tweet out Jan 14,  America's top Bio-defense experts were laying out quarantine plans on the Resolute Desk.  Do you really think the USFG was waiting around for the WHO to officially declare human to human transmission?

    No, Trump was fully apprised of the coming global pandemic well before Jan 14th.  The National Security Council was providing Trump daily reports beginning Jan 3rd.  We know of nothing that suggests Trump gave any orders, made inquiries for weeks.  Let's remember Trump was deep in Impeachment and does anybody sincerely doubt that Trump was more focused on Impeachment than Coronavirus?   Given the political pressure Trump's virus inaction is perhaps understandable but hardly forgivable given the hundreds of thousands of American deaths we must now endure for Trump's interests.

    Remember when Bush was told that America was under attack and he took that six minute breather ?

    "Mr. Bush has not said why he lingered in the room for another six minutes, but it was a testament to either his calm or his acting ability. But at 9:12, he abruptly retreated, speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials.

    Hurriedly Mr. Bush wrote a statement on a yellow pad with a black felt-tip pen. At 9:30, he appeared in a large media room, where charts about the education budget had been whisked away. With children, teachers and Florida Republicans jammed into the room, he faced the cameras, noticeably shaken.

    ''Today we had a national tragedy,'' he said. ''Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country.''

    Then, lapsing into some informal language, he vowed ''to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act. Terrorism against our nation will not stand.'' He said he was returning to Washington immediately.

    But as he spoke, panic had spread in the White House.

    multiply Bush's dumbshit by 10 and you get 60 minutes by 10 again and you get 10 hours by 10 again you get one hundred hours. 

    Once advised that American was under attack by the deadliest virus in a century, Trump took a couple hundred hours of breather before he started making some calls.  Alas, the good any of that time did for any of us.... Trump included.




  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,320
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @oromagi
    Why were they banned?

    They weren't.  No actions have been taken by YouTube vs either doctor.

    Wasn't it google who took down the video?

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,320
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Greyparrot
    Social media still has yet to ban the tweets from CNN and the WHO claiming Covid was not transmissible person to person, so the argument that social media gives a fuck about saving lives instead of blindly being invested in an agenda is pure bullshit.


    A1

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,402
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @Stephen
    -> @oromagi
    Why were they banned?

    They weren't.  No actions have been taken by YouTube vs either doctor.



    Google bought the site in November 2006 for US$1.65 billion; YouTube now operates as one of Google's subsidiaries.
  • Singularity
    Singularity avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,019
    2
    3
    8
    Singularity avatar
    Singularity
    --> @oromagi
    You are missing the point. It isn't about whether the doctors are right or wrong. Though it is amusing you choose your opinion on a subject by determining how many experts are on each side of that issue and picking the side with the more popular opinion.  

    The post is about youtube censorship. YouTube has been censoring videos that contradict what the world health organization says. It is literally in their policies at the moment to do so. I guess they think the WHO can't possibly be wrong about anything, but that is problematic enough, the fact is they have used a broad definition of that as  well, and a drug company recently had a video taken down discussing a technique they were working on that could possibly help this situation. So I guess youtube does not want to discuss possible cures. 

    YouTube is owned by a very pro censorship group who even does China's censorship for them in exchange for operating in their country. Why is it ethical for google to act as an arm of the Chinese government? 

    I am amazed you completely ignore the problem of Nazi style censorship to discuss if the minority opinion of a group of experts is correct or no, with your evidence of them being incorrect was "well most experts disagree and experts with the majority opi i . Are never wrong"

  • Singularity
    Singularity avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,019
    2
    3
    8
    Singularity avatar
    Singularity
    --> @blamonkey
    According to the law you can either be a public forum or a publisher. Not both. YouTube seems to be a publisher when it benefits them, giving them the right to censor content or a public forum when it benefits them, giving them protections from defamation lawsuits for example. So it does appear either youtube us not operating legally in that regard
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @Singularity
    A publisher is just that - a repository of published information. It has nothing to do with censorship or the like (at least, the designation of a publisher anyway.) Under section 230, YouTube is immune from laws targeting user-generated content. They don't oscillate between the two categorizations you list. Moreover, the very fact that they are a "publisher" means that they are not responsible for user generated content and precludes them from lawsuits about, for example, a rude comment made by someone on the site that could be perceived as defamation. This doesn't mean that they cannot moderate. In fact, moderation is often needed to shut down social media accounts run by ISIS recruiters and the like. Whether it was morally permissible to take down this YouTube video, to me anyway, is a wholly uninteresting debate that I've seen played too many times. 

    My argument is not that YouTube moderation is benign, nor do I intend to enter into an argument concerning its alleged censorship. Publishers are simply afforded rights under the current law that does not hold them responsible for the actions of others that contribute to the site, nor does law suggest that their moderation be neutral. In the example I mentioned, the issue was not that someone was getting sued for making rude comments, it's that the website, Wikipedia, was taken to court for the comments of particular posters on the site. That had nothing to do with being a "public forum." Wikipedia clearly is not one. 

    Also, the law that supposedly changes things for the better by making moderation impartial does no such thing. In the text of the bill, the way by which 230 rights are stripped is patently deleterious, potentially chilling free speech further. 

    "Under his bill, to refuse certification, the FTC need not show that the platform actively engaged in moderation practices designed to hurt a viewpoint, but rather that its practices “disproportionately restrict[] or promote[] access to, or the availability of, information from a political party, political  candidate, or political viewpoint.” This means that, if a platform wants to moderate user content, it will have to take a rigid stance against all content so as to ensure that the FTC decides, by clear and convincing evidence, that the platform did not moderate it in a politically biased manner. In other words, legitimate speech — conservative and liberal alike — will suffer because platforms will worry that failing to remove questionable content may appear to disproportionately affect a viewpoint (source 2 of previous post)."

    The chief concern is not about biased moderation, but whether, practices disproportionately restrict access to the availability of a political ideology or viewpoint, even odious ones, but we won't get into that. This will lead to major sites undergoing hyper-vigilant moderation to guarantee that both sides are represented on all issues, lest they are subject to this addendum to section 230. So, will we have quotas? Will only so many conservative or liberal viewpoints be allowed to be expressed? This distinctly reminds me of the Fairness Doctrine, which mandated news media cover "all sides" of an issue, which led to less issues being discussed on news shows according to the FCC review of the doctrine (1).

    Sources

  • Singularity
    Singularity avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,019
    2
    3
    8
    Singularity avatar
    Singularity
    --> @blamonkey
    Here this goes into some of the benefits of. Publisher vs platform. 


  • Singularity
    Singularity avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,019
    2
    3
    8
    Singularity avatar
    Singularity
    I don't honestly think ISIS recruiters should be censored either. I think censorship kinda says, hey we can't beat their argument so we have to hide it. It is possible ISIS is right and I am wrong, so without 100% certainty of being right it is unethical to censor isis
  • blamonkey
    blamonkey avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 492
    1
    4
    8
    blamonkey avatar
    blamonkey
    --> @Singularity
    Irrespective of wrong and right, it is a security issue. At one point, there were people leaving the West to join the ranks of ISIS, which runs counter to security in this nation and elsewhere. But in any case, under the new law proposed, any sort of political expression could be subject to draconian intervention. 

    The video was informative, but the people assume that Google, YouTube, and these publishers are able to sufficiently weed out actual violators of their terms & conditions. Can they though? Moderators for YouTube are required to sign a waiver which states:

    "I understand the content I will be reviewing may be disturbing. It is possible that reviewing such content may impact my mental health, and it could even lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (1)."

    Many Facebook mods are developing PTSD-like symptoms, so this is not a hypothetical (3).

    How many do you think want to work as moderators? What about job turnover? How many people left this site as mods because they couldn't handle on-site B.S?

    Now, it may be possible to rely on algorithms to detect content violations, but adopting this sort of stringent system may lead to false-positives. YouTube may have inadvertently caused many LGBT content creators to lose monetization purely due to the fact that the issues discussed in the video are LGBT (2). The YouTuber being interviewed suspects that the reason for this removal is the use of the word "trans" in video descriptions. That's likely wrong, but YouTube admitted that it relied on "machine learning (2)."

    So, if there are no adequate methods by which we can moderate millions upon millions of videos, search results, etc. would it be fair to deem publishers complicit in the violations committed by a particular user? And, if they are unable to currently enforce their own rules, how would making them enforce new ones dealing with neutrality be any better? No political party can be precluded under the law being proposed, so massive websites, (which are specifically targeted in the bill, so DART will be safe,) will need to drastically scale up moderation to maintain homeostasis betwixt the right and left, (and presumably other ideologies as well, but let's be honest, this is another sordid partisan saber rattling competition. Maybe one side is more justified than another, but it remains the same carnival of pain regardless.) 

    I'm not saying that the current system is 100% fair, but the alternative being proposed doesn't seem too much better.


    Sources
    1.https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51245616
  • Singularity
    Singularity avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,019
    2
    3
    8
    Singularity avatar
    Singularity
    --> @blamonkey
    I don't disagree with most of that. The way facebook and youtube treats their mods is disgusting, but the mods seem overzealous so I think maybe they deserve that treatment a bit until they get some perspective. For example I am pretty anti cop myself. We have black lives matter videos on YouTube showing policing shooting unarmed black men and breaking it down that are not demonitized for example, but when I see the same video talked about from a more sane angle such as what donutoperator does on youtube, than he is instantly demonetized. Seriously watch his videos compared to the same black life matters videos but from a different breakdown point. There is clearly a political motivation behind demonitizing his videos of the same graphic content and letting g the people who say "fuck all pigs" keep their monetization despite having the exact same graphic content. 

    I don't think a fairness sort of doctrine should be imposed unless it is just to allow somebody to have a voice, but certainly google should not be able to try and censor because they think it will help influence elections somehow (internal documents prove that is the reason).

    As far as the ISIS security issue, it is beside the point. If it causes the complete destruction of the west, I am fine with it. I think the ideals of freedom are the most noble and even are worth it. Freedom is inherently good, and I u like some federal judges I do think the bill of rights is fine as a suicide pact if those freedoms are taken to the extreme. Our rights are more important than the consequences of having those rights. "Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice.:

  • Singularity
    Singularity avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 1,019
    2
    3
    8
    Singularity avatar
    Singularity
    I would take dangerous freedom over a peaceful slave existence.