SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the even-my-parent's-VCR-clock-is-right-once-a-day dept.
Channels like VAXXED TV, LarryCook333, iHealthTube, and other anti-vaccination channels on YouTube have been seeing their videos demonetized starting Friday.
“We have strict policies that govern what videos we allow ads to appear on, and videos that promote anti-vaccination content are a violation of those policies”
the policy referenced by YouTube states:
Harmful or dangerous acts
Video content that promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury is not suitable for advertising. Some examples include videos depicting painful or invasive surgical or cosmetic procedures, or pranks involving sexual harassment or humiliation.
According to YouTube, this includes anti-vaxxer content.
Youtube has also introduced an information panel pertaining to vaccines. Looking through some anti-vax channels, the following text and link is displayed below anti-vax videos:
Vaccine controversies
Vaccine hesitancy, a reluctance or refusal to vaccinate or have one's children vaccinated, has been identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.[1][2] Hesitancy results from public debates around the medical, ethical and legal issues related to vaccines.
Wikipedia
Most may agree with the target of these actions (particularly with measles making a tragic comeback in the U.S. due to loss of herd immunity resulting from reduced vaccination rates), but the process still has those 'unaccountable', 'untransparent', 'arbitrary', 'unappealable' characteristics that have become the norm with large social media providers.
Pinterest is also taking measures to reduce the spread of anti-vax propaganda on its platform
So how exactly is Pinterest doing this? By blacklisting search terms like “vaccines” from the platform, along with sites that spread this sort of health misinformation.
Additional coverage of anti-vax demonitization Here and here
A sampling of previous coverage of the 'vaccine controversy' on SoylentNews here and here
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Monday February 25 2019, @02:40AM (12 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday February 25 2019, @02:59AM (9 children)
I don't get the reason you are complaining.
Fair is fair: you are still within your rights to refuse vaccination.
Also fair is fair: you can not force me or anyone else to have dealings with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Monday February 25 2019, @03:09AM (8 children)
I wasn't complaining.
I was poking fun at the utterly ridiculous quote:
"Vaccine hesitancy, a reluctance or refusal to vaccinate or have one's children vaccinated, has been identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten global health threats of 2019.[1][2] Hesitancy results from public debates around the medical, ethical and legal issues related to vaccines."
"Hesitancy" doesn't result from debates. It results from avoidance of debates, and/or a failure to convince at said debates, and/or the natural human desire to remain inviolate.
Demonizing people that are "hesitant" to allow some stranger to penetrate them 'for their own good' may actually make a certain amount of sense within a very narrowly circumscribed point of view but it makes every creepazoid sensor in my body scream simultaneously.
How about you quit pretending that anyone that isn't eager to be penetrated must be retarded, and accept that debate may be required and some people may rationally refuse anyway?
Would that just make too much sense or what?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 25 2019, @03:48AM
How about you show me where I pretented anti-vaxxers are retarded or even just implied it?
Even if I would have done it (which I didn't), it is within my rights to do so. Your choice if you want to deal with my position or not. Fair enough? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday February 25 2019, @04:45AM (4 children)
Let me ask a different question - why are you so keen on using the word "penetrate" as if it is some implicit violation? Are patients who receive anaesthetic, tetanus shots or insulin being violated?
Would you say that it's sensible for a diabetic to decide that they'd rather roll the dice than use insulin, because they don't like being "penetrated"? After all, they _could_ survive without those shots as long as they're careful, but it's much harder. I'd call them idiots.
For the record, I don't call anti-vaxxers retarded - I call them selfish. They put their own perceived needs above those of society, and rely on others doing the right thing to protect them via herd immunity. They also want to have their cake and eat it - refuse to help the community prevent outbreaks, but still want to receive the full benefits of being part of that society. I personally have no problem with schools etc banning unvaccinated kids as a health measure to protect the rest of the student body.
(Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday February 25 2019, @11:44PM
Technically, any shot is an invasion of the body - it is placing a tube into the body which does not naturally belong. Also technically, shots if done incorrectly do indeed cause damage and even if done correctly run an infinitesimally small chance of still developing an infection. (And for incorrect uses... look up conditions like lipoatrophy for diabetics who fail to rotate administration sites, or track marks for heroin users).
If the shot had no therapeutic purpose (i.e. did not expect a greater gain either individually or societally than the level of invasion) it is a battery.
And yes, a diabetic who has competency may refuse their insulin. Patient autonomy, in a patient capable of consent (which includes revoking or refusing consent), is the first virtue which is above all others. A diabetic may intentionally choose death by refusal to accept insulin if he or she chooses. (By the way, assuming you're talking a Type 1 diabetic whose body produces no insulin whatsoever, and without supplemental insulin the body will waste and die. Type 2 and Diabetes Insipidus patients do not necessarily require insulin). Calling such a person an idiot makes you God, which you ain't.
I agree with you that anti-vaxxers are indeed selfish, only very rarely understand the true risks of vaccination versus non-vaccination (in terms of odds), and place their desires above society's. They also almost always do not understand the concept of herd immunity and that their refusal does in fact affect more than themselves as potential carriers of a live disease. (Not to mention unnecessarily endangering the health care workers who will still be there for them in their disease and when their 'children's disease' very rarely passes into a fatal irreversible condition. Usually those horrid complications occur at a far greater rate than the extremely rare damaging vaccine reaction. Although OPV should be discarded in favor of shots.) They are selfish. But even then.... they have the autonomy to say no even if it hurts the rest of us, literally. And that doesn't mean they're "right" even if they have "rights".
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:29AM (2 children)
It is the accurate and clinical word to refer to what is happening. The skin which defines the boundary between the individual and the outside world is penetrated. It's perplexing to me you seem to think I am playing some sort of word game when I am simply using the word that matches the action precisely.
"Are patients who receive anaesthetic, tetanus shots or insulin being violated?"
Yes, they are.
There are two sense in which this can be taken - the minor sense is the sense in which even with consent this is indeed a "violation" of the physical integrity of the individual. Again, that's not a word game, it's simply an accurate statement. The boundary is violated.
Done for a legitimate medical reason, with proper sanitation and sterile procedures, and with informed consent, this is a violation only in the technical sense, meaning that skin is penetrated. But if it's done without consent, it's also a violation in a much deeper and more significant sense as well.
"Would you say that it's sensible for a diabetic to decide that they'd rather roll the dice than use insulin, because they don't like being "penetrated"?"
Sensible? I doubt it. But it's not my call to make. That call is up to the individual in question.
"For the record, I don't call anti-vaxxers retarded - I call them selfish."
Funny, I'd call you the same thing. Just based on this post.
Other people have minds too. Just because you don't understand why someone says 'no' doesn't mean you have a right to ignore their 'no.'
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday February 28 2019, @06:06AM (1 child)
I can accept that some people will say no. I do not accept that they should expect no other consequences as a result of their decision to say no.
If I decide to wear a singlet and shorts, I accept that I will not be permitted to dine at a fancy restaurant. If I decide to not bathe for a week, I accept that I will be unlikely to hook up with someone at a bar. If an anti-vaxxer decides not to vaccinate their kids, they should accept that their child will be unable to attend a public elementary school. Yet they don't - they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Ship 'em off to Madagascar - they're having loads of fun with Measles at the moment.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday February 28 2019, @11:14AM
The second part isn't a real thing. No one other than you ever said that.
Every action, even declining to act, always has consequences.
I don't think that's what you mean though. No, I rather expect what you actually mean is you want consequences imposed on them. You want them sanctioned, for refusing to do what you think they should do.
I do think you're an authoritarian.
"If an anti-vaxxer decides not to vaccinate their kids, they should accept that their child will be unable to attend a public elementary school."
And you would refund their school taxes so they can afford an alternative? Or is this simply meant as a way of punishing the wrongthinkers, and their little children as well?
"Ship 'em off to Madagascar - they're having loads of fun with Measles at the moment."
Never mind, you've said more than enough already.
Give me a thousand frightened and poorly informed folks that respect the rights of strangers over a single self-righteous authoritarian jackass any day. I hope you get shipped to Madagascar. Not that they deserve to have to deal with you either, but I suspect they'd at least be quick and efficient about it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by FatPhil on Monday February 25 2019, @11:17PM (1 child)
Your choice of term is sophistry - it's an injection, why do you want to dress it up with a misleading loaded word? (That's a rhetorical question, there's no need to answer; it's because you know the meat of your argument is weak, we can all see that.) Are expectant mothers being given nitrous oxide on the delivery table being "gassed"? Do you view wearing seatbelts during take-off and landing as bondage at the hands of the dominatrix air steward?
Of course, there can be rational reasons to not vaccinate, but they are few and far between, and fortunately that makes them small enough not to affect the herd immunity. Being an anti-science loon is not such a reason, and the results of that have been adequately demonstrated to those who pay attention to such issues. Now if anti-vaxers were prepared to insure against the breaking of herd immunity, and not just their own sickness, then perhaps they could convince the rest of the libertarians to support them, but even then, the masses should view them for what they are - a dangerous risk.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:16AM
Do I detect someone who has no reasoned response?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @03:00AM
"I'm sorry children, Youtube pulled our ad-funding so now we have to deliver you to some doctors to be, uh, as some creep said, 'penetrated'."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @06:38AM
Politics by corporate policy is a VERY slippery and dangerous slope.