Hacker News Reader

Comment by kcplate | Hacker News Reader

I think the future is going to look back on this pandemic and be simply amazed that the public allowed social media companies to dictate to the world what scientists and the people could and could not discuss. Much in the same way we look at the 16th century with Galileo and the Catholic Church.

View on HN

Scientists discuss science in YouTube comments? That's a first to me.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562540.

This thread is literally under a scientific publication investigating the effectiveness of Ivermecitin, but yeah, basically like Galileo Galilei. Except not at all.

Any discussion of ivermectin on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and twitter is met with ceremonial bans or deletion. Even when the discussion is between doctors or is part of a senate hearing (see: dark horse podcast with Bret and Cory, and Cory’s testimony to the senate which have both been taken off YouTube)

So yes it is an apt comparison.

YouTube and Facebook are public platforms. Nobody benefits from the general public being sold unsubstantiated theories of miracle medicine X before there is scientific consensus. My beetroot-cures-cancer video has no right to be there either.

We are talking about scientists presenting important evidence about existing and useful treatments, and about the public discussing it, and about large companies censoring that debate. That is not anywhere near "selling miracle cures". Discussing good news, even if they may be incomplete or inaccurate is beneficial to many people.

Most of these videos are not “evidence” being presented, but merely opinions or advocacy. The general public has no need to “discuss” unproven treatments. Evidence is presented through studies and medical journals.

Witness testimony is evidence, these are respectable and accomplished people. You are wrong about the needs of the public. Public does need to be able to communicate about this. There are levels of evidence, not everything is presented through medical journals. However, there are papers in those journals too, see the article that this discussion is associated with.

Thank you for determining what I should or should not discuss.

The church has a similar perspective about “off limit” topics too.

In the 16th century falling out of favor with the church’s conventional wisdom could affect your social standing and livelihood.

In 2021 falling out of favor with your social media platform’s conventional wisdom could affect your social standing and livelihood.

> 16th century with Galileo and the Catholic Church.

Killing science in the name of religion and beliefs is one thing, killing science in the name of science itself is quite another.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com