Misinformation is killing people. Given that, who should YouTube use as a source of truth?
The US government? Bill Nye the Science Guy?
Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona?
The US government? Bill Nye the Science Guy?
Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona?
Edit: note that in both replies to my comment, none of the specific facts I mentioned were responded to. The response of the countries is being blamed, the date I mentioned is being ignored; but I am comparing the information coming publicly out of the WHO in January to the information coming out of 4chan in January.
In hindsight, if you compared the information from both at that time, you would have had a better idea of the real situation if you believed 4chan over the WHO.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chie...
Nations who handled the crisis the best, imposed travel bans early on and were criticised by the WHO.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the-china...
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...
The key sentence that Tedros is being criticised for is:
“First, there is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade. WHO doesn’t recommend limiting trade and movement.”
However, in the same speech:
“ we must all act together now to limit further spread. The vast majority of cases outside China have a travel history to Wuhan, or contact with someone with a travel history to Wuhan”
and
“Our greatest concern is the potential for the virus to spread to countries with weaker health systems, and which are ill-prepared to deal with it”
This leads me to believe that perhaps he was trying to have it both ways:
- flag the need for action
- keep a major player from “losing face”.
I don’t envy his job, or in fact any of the UN organisations. You’re at the mercy of your big funders; you’re trying to influence hundreds of countries who’d rather focus on their own internal politics; you have no actual power. You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. How on earth do you move the needle at all in that kind of environment?
The WHO chose to recommend against travel bans. This was the information they shared with the world. If countries chose to enact such bans anyway - good for them: they knew better than to believe the WHO. The WHO, compared with 4chan, was in January the inferior source of public information about the virus.
https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
This was after Taiwan's warnings in December which they ignored.
Forget the WHO for a second (which remember was politically cast adrift by the US when they refused to participate in it.)
The news coming out of Europe/Iran/China had lay people in the US concerned by late February -- yet the American Government did everything it could to belittle or otherwise diminish the threat. Now it wants to turn around and suggest that it's actions are to be blamed by the WHO? What happened to self-responsibility?
Give me a break.
Before the news coming out of Europe and Iran things were breaking in China. The 4chan guys were all over it way back in Jan. Remember the Chinese Dr whistle blower who got punished for letting the truth? He was dead by Jan 20-22.. at this point the WHO was downplaying, later praising China and telling everyone not to wear a mask.
The WHO response caused the outbreak to get out of control in Europe and elsewhere long before it hit North America.
If they’d switched tune to ‘close your borders’ and ‘this is a global pandemic’ earlier you would have seen some different responses.
I think the thread under this is kinda missing a deeper point. 4chan was taking this virus seriously back in January. I also wouldn't be surprised that 4chan was the original origin of "it's just a flu, bro" meme, which is to say, plenty of 4chan and related communities was also mocking the idea of taking it seriously.
The point of free speech isn't that the speech will freely contain only the truth. The point of free speech is we need that debate to find the truth. Declaring the WHO as the one and only source of truth is a bad idea, even before we observe the fact that it has manifestly made numerous incorrect statements within the past couple of months, and that reasonably people can question some of the things it is saying even now.
There isn't an option where we get only pure, unfiltered truth. Sorry. That's life. But there is an option where we pretty much guarantee ourselves that we will not get the truth, and that option is declaring a single trusted source of truth who will somehow transcend the fact they are made up of falliable and potentially untrustworthy human beings to deliver you that truth.
They take it seriously in the same way that a rotating drum full of ping-pong balls happens to contain the winning lottery numbers every week. Glomming on to novelty is is the defining trait of quasi-anonymous social networks.
Maybe they should just have a disclaimer on every video: "Watch this with a critical eye and a grain of salt. Perhaps a truckload of salt. Use your brain."
As another commenter noted, wearing a mask contradicts WHO advice.
Why are we expecting a private company to provide "a source of truth"? What happened to the whole idea of the Internet being about the free flow of information?
>Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona?
Why don't we have parental controls for our parents yet? Why are we applying blanket bans on parts of the Internet when it's clearly a specific subset of the population that needs hand-holding to not injure themselves or others?
How many? I don't think it's very many.
I can't see and end game that's not terrible.
How many? Give numbers. I don't think very many people followed that advice and got killed by it, and I cannot find any data that suggests otherwise.