Look, yes, it's hard but we can distinguish against self-serving, profit-driven quackery/actually dangerous advice *and* genuine scientific disagreement. WHO is not The Oracle; the science of a pandemic is evolving. WHO itself is evolving its views.https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1252715349079777280 …
-
-
A quick clarification saying that will solve the problem. It’s not a minor concern—it was so hard to publicly contradict the WHO at first, even with evidence. I saw stuff taken down for advocating for masks because it got conflated with other things.https://twitter.com/kellyscaletta/status/1252736098268299265 …
Show this thread -
I get that. I couldn't find the video elsewhere, and be that as it may, I don't want trolls and anti-vaxxers to claim this mantle. There is an evidence-based anti-misinformation case against making WHO into The Oracle while also fighting the quackery.https://twitter.com/ilrosso_/status/1252742782453678080 …
Show this thread -
She says the context is only fake cures, not WHO in general. Also, the original tweeter is clearly acting in bad faith, but I couldn't find the longer video. I will look it up and will either delete and retweet without the first video or better, be wrong!https://twitter.com/KellyScaletta/status/1252748921329397760 …
Show this thread -
Okay, deleted top tweet (the quoted person is not against misinformation or quackery). Here's the longer video. I'm still not convinced that YouTube will only remove fake cures if they contradict the WHO and would really like to see some clarification.https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/04/19/inside-youtubes-numerous-policy-changes-during-the-pandemic.cnn/video/playlists/business-reliable-sources/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How many quacks are posting videos on YouTube compared to the amount of real scientists posting videos arguing between each other?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The more that censorship becomes an accepted part of the landscape, and the more tools are provided and endorsed for that purpose, the greater the number of actors who will correctly recognize the power of utilizing that infrastructure for their own ends. Thus has it always been.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They haven't seen and they don't want to know. Politicians and media (not necessarily in that order) demand certainties. Canadian PM Trudeau got hammered three days running by media for refusing to 'divulge' a 'model'.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes but chairman of the who seemed so sure when he was saying this virus is not airborne. They should have stated that they are not a reliable source for this virus.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If YouTube can't distinguish between quackery and real scientific discussions, then it's just not a good place for those discussions. Not spreading medical misinformation is basic responsibility of any medium. We'd be outraged if we'd see quackery in our TV or newspapers.
-
We can all agree that fighting quackery is good, but WHO has (especially in recent months) proven to be quite fallible. Using it as the only source is not necessarily a good idea.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.