YouTube starts mass takedowns of videos promoting ‘harmful or ineffective’ cancer cures | The platform will also take action against videos that discourage people from seeking professional medical …::YouTube will remove content about harmful or ineffective cancer treatments or which “discourages viewers from seeking professional medical treatment.”

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    YouTube hopes that this policy framework will be flexible enough to cover a broad range of medical topics, while finding a balance between minimizing harm and allowing debate.

    In its blog post, YouTube says it would take action both against treatments that are actively harmful, as well as those that are unproven and are being suggested in place of established alternatives.

    YouTube’s updated policies come a little over three years after it banded together with some of the world’s biggest tech platforms to make a shared commitment to fight covid-19 misinformation.

    While the major tech platforms stood united in early 2020, their exact approaches to covid-19 misinformation have differed since that initial announcement.

    Most notably, Twitter stopped enforcing its covid-19 misinformation policy in late 2022 following its acquisition by Elon Musk.

    Meta has also softened its moderation approach recently, rolling back its covid-19 misinformation rules in countries (like the US) where the disease is no longer considered a national emergency.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      YouTube hopes that this policy framework will be flexible enough to cover a broad range of medical topics, while finding a balance between minimizing harm and allowing debate.

      there’s nothing to debate

            • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              that’s why we have peer review, replications, editorial standards and so on, if something’s funky with your paper you get a retraction. generally scientific method got pretty good at getting better description of reality over time

                • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  science from 200 years ago is not the same thing as we have now ffs

                  now, and at basically any point from past hundred years or so, when scientific method was reasonably widely adopted, this method is a tool to avoid repeating mistakes like this

                  and at any rate it doesn’t mean that random snake oil peddler, in this case “traditional medicine” flavoured, is more trustworthy than state of the art evidence based medicine, just because science made mistakes in the (distant) past

            • XTL@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Reader described experiencing mild discomfort but no visible signs of cancer.