YouTube has banned Sky News Australia for a week due to Covid misinformation.

[Andrew Reeve]

 

YouTube has barred Sky News Australia from uploading new content for a week, saying it had breached rules on spreading Covid-19 misinformation.

It issued a "strike" under its three-strike policy, the last of which means permanent removal. YouTube did not point to specific items but said it opposed material that "could cause real-world harm". The TV channel's digital editor said the decision was a disturbing attack on the ability to think freely.

Sky News Australia is owned by a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and has 1.85 million YouTube subscribers. The ban could affect its revenue stream from Google.

 

YouTube claimed to have "clear and established Covid-19 medical misinformation policy based on local and worldwide health authority recommendations," according to a statement. According to a spokesman, "material that rejects the existence of Covid-19" or encourages individuals to "take hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus" was not allowed. Both have yet to be shown effective against Covid.

According to the spokeswoman, the videos in question "did not provide sufficient opposing context." Sky News Australia stated that it had discovered old videos that did not comply with YouTube's regulations and that it was "committed to achieving editorial and community expectations." However, it denied that any of its hosts had ever rejected Covid-19's existence.

 

Millions of Australians are being confined to their homes to avoid the spread of the contagious Delta variety, despite the fact that only 15% of the population has been completely vaccinated.

In Australia, comments made by veteran Sky anchor Alan Jones have sparked criticism. Both guys stated Delta was not as harmful as the original and that immunizations would not help in a webcast on July 12 with MP Craig Kelly.

Sky News apologized on their website.

Jones' performances have "enabled conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers... to gather sympathy from a minority who believe the virus is nothing more than a dose of flu," according to Sydney radio broadcaster Ray Hadley. Jones' column for Australia's Daily Telegraph came to an end last week.

Source: BBC

 

 

 

[BraveNewFahrenheit]

Censorship has a long history of working out well for all involved!! I think we are all better off now that all those independent journalists were silenced last year for discussing the lab leak hypothesis, that you know, was a conspiracy theory.

[gummy]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reeve said:

YouTube has barred Sky News Australia from uploading new content for a week, saying it had breached rules on spreading Covid-19 misinformation.

It issued a "strike" under its three-strike policy, the last of which means permanent removal. YouTube did not point to specific items but said it opposed material that "could cause real-world harm". The TV channel's digital editor said the decision was a disturbing attack on the ability to think freely.

Sky News Australia is owned by a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and has 1.85 million YouTube subscribers. The ban could affect its revenue stream from Google.

YouTube claimed to have "clear and established Covid-19 medical misinformation policy based on local and worldwide health authority recommendations," according to a statement. According to a spokesman, "material that rejects the existence of Covid-19" or encourages individuals to "take hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus" was not allowed. Both have yet to be shown effective against Covid.

According to the spokeswoman, the videos in question "did not provide sufficient opposing context." Sky News Australia stated that it had discovered old videos that did not comply with YouTube's regulations and that it was "committed to achieving editorial and community expectations." However, it denied that any of its hosts had ever rejected Covid-19's existence.

Millions of Australians are being confined to their homes to avoid the spread of the contagious Delta variety, despite the fact that only 15% of the population has been completely vaccinated.

In Australia, comments made by veteran Sky anchor Alan Jones have sparked criticism. Both guys stated Delta was not as harmful as the original and that immunizations would not help in a webcast on July 12 with MP Craig Kelly.

Sky News apologized on their website.

Jones' performances have "enabled conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers... to gather sympathy from a minority who believe the virus is nothing more than a dose of flu," according to Sydney radio broadcaster Ray Hadley. Jones' column for Australia's Daily Telegraph came to an end last week.

Source: BBC

When did Australia stop being a democratic country ?

[Poolie]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reeve said:

Source: BBC

They can talk. Pot, kettle, grimy arse.

[KaptainRob]

15 hours ago, Andrew Reeve said:

Sky News Australia is owned by a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and has 1.85 million YouTube subscribers. The ban could affect its revenue stream from Google.

YouTube claimed to have "clear and established Covid-19 medical misinformation policy based on local and worldwide health authority recommendations," according to a statement. According to a spokesman, "material that rejects the existence of Covid-19" or encourages individuals to "take hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus" was not allowed. Both have yet to be shown effective against Covid.

Seems to prove the veracity of leaked contractual obligations enforced by Big Parma on vax customers to quash all negative commentary and alternate medicines.

I suggest this may also be one reason behind Thai Govt. recent clamp down on fake news.

[billywillyjones]

Stasi sate comes to mind.  Orwellian censorhip ongoing now in many countries. You will obey.

[dj230]

I wish all mis-information was banned from youtube, lots of ponzi schemes and mis-information on health/nutrition for monetary gain

[billywillyjones]

16 hours ago, gummy said:

When did Australia stop being a democratic country ?

People don't realize democracy and feedom of speech only exists when it favors those in power.  It's like a bad insurance policy which denies your claim when you need it most but promises everything when its sold.

[js89]

On 8/2/2021 at 10:02 AM, yetanother said:

guess they are not up-to-date; lots of ivermectin studies, many quoted here in various threads; 

even if the efficacy issue was "maybe,maybe not" open discussion is required in intelligent society 

I've yet to see a properly designed and peer-reviewed study, published by a reputable medical journal that shows that Ivermectin is better than no treatment or placebo.

Open discussion is good. Promoting an unproven treatment that lulls credulous people into a false sense of security is not. Covid disinformation is not benign: it comes with consequences that kill some of those who choose to believe it. 

[BraveNewFahrenheit]

6 hours ago, js89 said:

. Covid disinformation is not benign: it comes with consequences that kill some of those who choose to believe it. 

Then so be it, because living in an authoritarian dystopia where all information must be filtered by the state is a 1000x worse than covid.

[Faraday]

7 hours ago, js89 said:

I've yet to see a properly designed and peer-reviewed study, published by a reputable medical journal that shows that Ivermectin is better than no treatment or placebo.

If there was a company, selling a product at 1000bt, & another company has a product that does the same, but is 10bt.

What do you think would happen?

 

[BlueSphinx]

34 minutes ago, Faraday said:

If there was a company, selling a product at 1000bt, & another company has a product that does the same, but is 10bt.

What do you think would happen?

The 1.000 THB product would be touted with a big advertising budget as highly effective and being made with the latest technology, while the 10 THB product would be made suspect as cheap chino-crap.  And despite being the same, the large majority of the public would fall for the expensive one...

[BlueSphinx]

On 8/3/2021 at 6:32 AM, dj230 said:

I wish all mis-information was banned from youtube, lots of ponzi schemes and mis-information on health/nutrition for monetary gain

The point is of course WHO will decide what is 'mis-information'.  Many networks have a vested interest because of big advertisers threatening to withdraw their budgets when information is posted that they do not like.   And so they set up a smoke-screen that they can hide behind to remove such information, by claiming that they rely on independent (hahaha) 'fact-checkers'.  So it are now those dubious anonymous fact-checkers with an agenda (with carefully hidden ties to their sponsors) that decide what you can and cannot see/hear/read.  Many instances of fact-checkers clearly being wrong in their fact-check, but never any repercussions for having done so, because the objective is to silence inconvenient information the moment it it is published and by doing so preventing others of doing same.

Judiciary action (a court case) should be the way to determine what is harmful mis-information (like Ponzi-schemes or fraudulent investment opportunity schemes).  But the current heavy-handed silencing of voices that go against the common narrative by de-platforming them, only leads to them having no choice but to have their messages heard on dodgy channels like Bitchute which they would previously would never have used or visited. 

[AussieBob]

8 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

The point is of course WHO will decide what is 'mis-information'.  Many networks have a vested interest because of big advertisers threatening to withdraw their budgets when information is posted that they do not like.   And so they set up a smoke-screen that they can hide behind to remove such information, by claiming that they rely on independent (hahaha) 'fact-checkers'.  So it are now those dubious anonymous fact-checkers with an agenda (with carefully hidden ties to their sponsors) that decide what you can and cannot see/hear/read.  Many instances of fact-checkers clearly being wrong in their fact-check, but never any repercussions for having done so, because the objective is to silence inconvenient information when it is published.

Judiciary action (a court case) should be the way to determine what is harmful mis-information (like Ponzi-schemes or fraudulent investment opportunity schemes).  But the current heavy-handed silencing of voices that go against the common narrative by de-platforming them, only leads to them having no choice but to have their messages heard on dodgy channels like Bitchute which they would previously would never have used or visited. 

I agree 100% - who decides what is fake and what is real??  Youtube has taken this action and has provided no details of exactly why they were banned - except generic statements like we will ban anyone that 'denies Covid exists' or "encourages non-approved medications'.  Clearly the ban was more political than factual by Youtube staff members.  Youtube has still refused to provide exactly why the channel was banned - meaning exactly what rules did Sky News breach and when and how. That matter is going to Court - same stuff as in the USA. 

I dont like Sky News that much, and I am not a great fan of Trump's style, but it is no coincidence that it is always the right side of politics that these 'progressive' organisations are shutting down.  Sure, they all had had a few people interviewed who said things not 'mainstream' and 'controversial'.  But on that basis The Thaiger should be banned by the Govt because they publish views of members that are not mainstream and/or approved??  Where is all the outrage that was there against the Junta when they wanted to be able to act exactly like Youtube has acted???

The 'guidelines' are impossible to comply with, because of the ever changing medical edicts being sent out by WHO and CDC and others.  The local Governments are often sending out different advice and rules that is actually conflict with WHO, CDC guidelines at that time.  One of the Sky News videos removed was an interview with a controversial right-wing MP who stated that the mask rule was 'evil and authoritarian' when it was enforced by an airline who forcibly removed a couple off a plane because their 2 year old refused to wear a mask. 

The Juntas was stopped.  Youtube Google Facebook etc. must be stopped.  Enforcement of public bans must be undertaken by independent publicly accountable authorities - not in secret back-room meetings with no accountability. If Youtube cannot 'prove' a breach of their rules to an independent authority, they should be held accountable and be able to be sued. They currently cannot be sued because of their blanket immunity as a 'public platform' (like telephone companies), but they act like an 'editor or publisher' who has the legal right to control information (like a publisher). They have it both ways at the moment - but that is going to change. 

[Faraday]

Someone I knew a long time ago, went for a Sales representative position with a well- known pharmaceutical company.

One of the questions she was asked was:

" How do you feel about selling a compound, that is little more than Aspirin?"

 

[dj230]

3 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

The point is of course WHO will decide what is 'mis-information'.  Many networks have a vested interest because of big advertisers threatening to withdraw their budgets when information is posted that they do not like.   And so they set up a smoke-screen that they can hide behind to remove such information, by claiming that they rely on independent (hahaha) 'fact-checkers'.  So it are now those dubious anonymous fact-checkers with an agenda (with carefully hidden ties to their sponsors) that decide what you can and cannot see/hear/read.  Many instances of fact-checkers clearly being wrong in their fact-check, but never any repercussions for having done so, because the objective is to silence inconvenient information the moment it it is published and by doing so preventing others of doing same.

Judiciary action (a court case) should be the way to determine what is harmful mis-information (like Ponzi-schemes or fraudulent investment opportunity schemes).  But the current heavy-handed silencing of voices that go against the common narrative by de-platforming them, only leads to them having no choice but to have their messages heard on dodgy channels like Bitchute which they would previously would never have used or visited. 

If it’s their platform, they get to decide. 
 

Would be the same if I broke rules on a forum and got banned. 
 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by dj230

[PBS]

On 8/2/2021 at 7:02 PM, yetanother said:

guess they are not up-to-date; lots of ivermectin studies, many quoted here in various threads; 

even if the efficacy issue was "maybe,maybe not" open discussion is required in intelligent society 

The drugs mentioned are not approved in Australia for prevention / treatment of Covid 19, plus one of the presenters repeatedly, Alan Jones (been successfully sued for slander more than once) deliberately misrepresented statistical finding in UK regarding Covid matters. Why an alleged news channel is endeavouring to promote drugs or content contrary to Australian government official advise I do not know. Sky News in Australia often represents right of centre opinion as fact, they are a disgrace.

[Smithydog]

 

One definition of “Fake News” is “News that is factually flawed or lacks supporting evidence”. I am confident that there are countless others and therein lies part of the problem.

The term “fake news” has been “irredeemably polarized” in that it has been co-opted by people with agendas, fixed points of view and especially political figures, to refer to any information put out by sources that do not support their partisan positions or their agenda. 

I read some good points in the following article. It talked about the challenge we face, amongst others, on “Fake News” being how we determine Misinformation from Disinformation.

https://www.verizon.com/info/technology/fake-news-on-social-media/

Misinformation is false information that one spreads because they believe it to be true. Disinformation is false information that one spreads even though they know it to be false. They must display an intent to try and deceive people.

Both types can achieve the same result. The Disinformation types are no better than conmen or fraudsters and deserve our ridicule. Their efforts for their own personal gain, only disrupt the legitimate messages from getting proper and effective airtime. 

Opinion Hosts are a natural result of people wanting to hear their own message on TV, despite any thought as to its actual accuracy. The hosts and channels know it will generate ratings and improved viewer numbers. Crafting their messages to appeal to their viewer bases shows intent.

I personally believe they are a major part of the problem on both sides of the debate, Sky News included, amongst many others. Until such hosts are held accountable for what they say on the air, how they say it, and how they later retract inaccuracies, I fear the debate will continue and won't be surprised to see more of the punitive action like what social media platforms have been doing. Taking away their viewer base seems to be the only way they will make changes.

 

[AussieBob]

On 8/13/2021 at 2:31 PM, dj230 said:

If it’s their platform, they get to decide. 
Would be the same if I broke rules on a forum and got banned. 
 

Wrong.  Forums like The Thaiger are liable for what their members say and do. TT can be charged if they do not address what members saying and if they are doing the wrong thing - plus they can be sued for things like slander by members and other public persons.  Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. have been given exemptions from being sued for what their members say or do, and they cannot be charged unless they allow illegal activity.  This is the same exemption that applies to telephone companies - they have no right to control what people are saying or doing on their telephone services, and therefore they cannot be sued for things like defamation, and they can only be charged if they deliberately allow illegal activities.

[dj230]

35 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Wrong.  Forums like The Thaiger are liable for what their members say and do. TT can be charged if they do not address what members saying and if they are doing the wrong thing - plus they can be sued for things like slander by members and other public persons.  Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. have been given exemptions from being sued for what their members say or do, and they cannot be charged unless they allow illegal activity.  This is the same exemption that applies to telephone companies - they have no right to control what people are saying or doing on their telephone services, and therefore they cannot be sued for things like defamation, and they can only be charged if they deliberately allow illegal activities.

This doesn't change anything, if it's their platform, they get to decide.

 

[AussieBob]

15 hours ago, dj230 said:

This doesn't change anything, if it's their platform, they get to decide.

Wrong again.  DTAC can not decide what you say on their phone service - but it is their platform.

[BlueSphinx]

On 8/13/2021 at 9:31 AM, Smithydog said:

One definition of “Fake News” is “News that is factually flawed or lacks supporting evidence”. I am confident that there are countless others and therein lies part of the problem.

The term “fake news” has been “irredeemably polarized” in that it has been co-opted by people with agendas, fixed points of view and especially political figures, to refer to any information put out by sources that do not support their partisan positions or their agenda. 

I read some good points in the following article. It talked about the challenge we face, amongst others, on “Fake News” being how we determine Misinformation from Disinformation.

https://www.verizon.com/info/technology/fake-news-on-social-media/

Misinformation is false information that one spreads because they believe it to be true. Disinformation is false information that one spreads even though they know it to be false. They must display an intent to try and deceive people.

Both types can achieve the same result. The Disinformation types are no better than conmen or fraudsters and deserve our ridicule. Their efforts for their own personal gain, only disrupt the legitimate messages from getting proper and effective airtime. 

Opinion Hosts are a natural result of people wanting to hear their own message on TV, despite any thought as to its actual accuracy. The hosts and channels know it will generate ratings and improved viewer numbers. Crafting their messages to appeal to their viewer bases shows intent.

I personally believe they are a major part of the problem on both sides of the debate, Sky News included, amongst many others. Until such hosts are held accountable for what they say on the air, how they say it, and how they later retract inaccuracies, I fear the debate will continue and won't be surprised to see more of the punitive action like what social media platforms have been doing. Taking away their viewer base seems to be the only way they will make changes.

Thanks, very useful for this discussion to make the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. 

You quoted > Misinformation is false information that one spreads because they believe it to be true. Disinformation is false information that one spreads even though they know it to be false. They must display an intent to try and deceive people.

From that perspective I would categorize many 'fact-checking organizations' actually as disinformation providers.

[Smithydog]

28 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

From that perspective I would categorize many 'fact-checking organizations' actually as disinformation providers.

The could easily be true, especially those associated strongly with media companies. It is also harder to see intent in someone we classify as good rather than someone we see as bad.

It could be said that the best "fact checkers" have a positive or good intent. To try and find the truth, if they can, based on evidence. They do that by offering a balance of facts being tested, using multiple testers, assessing opinions on both sides of the argument, and reporting their opinion based on a scale of truth. They provide their assessments for all to see, with sources and for all to make their own judgements.

The bad ones though start biased, often hiding or ignoring key proven information that doesn't support their beliefs. This more often matches people who display  a negative intent. They usually have a bias towards one side of the debate which clouds their decisions. Unfortunately there are plenty of those out there and their intent is clearly visible! These ones  would definitely be disinformation spreaders for sure.

I can't remember who told me about this, but I heard some cartoon characters being used as an example to show how hard it can be to see intent in someone seemingly on the "good side". The characters were the Coyote & the Roadrunner. Clearly the intent of the Coyote is to catch and eat the Roadrunner for food and obviously cast as the "Bad Guy"

But ask yourself this. Is the intent of the "Good Guy" Roadrunner to just survive, tease, have fun with, or even use the need of the Coyote to cause harm? The intent of the Roadrunner isn't so easily identified.

It is hard determining intent and then proving it to others. It is why debates get so polarised and binary. Our beliefs, personal opinions and emotions cloud our clarity of judgement. The best fact checkers have to learn to push all that aside in their intent to seek truth rather than risk also being labelled as spreaders of Disinformation.

[dj230]

7 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Wrong again.  DTAC can not decide what you say on their phone service - but it is their platform.

I am talking about websites, not cell phone services. A website gets to choose what they censor, that's how it works

Edited August 15, 2021 by dj230

[AussieBob]

20 minutes ago, dj230 said:

I am talking about websites, not cell phone services. A website gets to choose what they censor, that's how it works

Wrong yet again.  I suggest you read up on things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/how-other-countries-have-dealt-intermediary-liability

https://genevasolutions.news/science-tech/a-section-230-for-eu-tech-companies

Once you have read those - then this summarises the issues fairly well.

https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-media-companies-are-publishers-and-not-platforms-that-changes-everything/