this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
342 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
58133 readers
4472 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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!
there's nothing to debate
I'd say that claim is debatable
if you want to determine efficacy of a treatment, you run a clinical trial, not a debate
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
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
Can we run a clinical trial on that comment?
Reader described experiencing mild discomfort but no visible signs of cancer.