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.”

  • 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

        • Reva@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That argument falls apart if the scientific world is imperfect in some way. It was not that long ago that “race sciences” were a rather undisputed thing, even worse if you get into the psychiatric field, eugenics and all.

          • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            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

            • Reva@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are structural issues in academia and society that make it much more likely that these institutions and control mechanisms are used to uphold the status quo rather than help.

              As I said, in the age of race science, a scientific editor would not accept any non-racist paper for being “inflammatory”, “extremist” or “an outlier”. Peer review does no good if your peers have biases. Replications only work if someone cares enough about you to replicate your experiment, let alone in fields without experiments at all.

              • 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.