<story><title>YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke</title><url>https://www.newsweek.com/david-icke-man-behind-coronavirus-5g-conspiracy-has-youtube-channel-shuttered-sharing-1501641</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>knzhou</author><text>Do you have a standard in mind that&amp;#x27;s better than the WHO? Would you prefer content prohibited on the basis of whether it sounds right or wrong to a random Google employee?</text></item><item><author>imgabe</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not going to shed a tear for David Icke, but this quote is very concerning:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 &lt;i&gt;as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and the NHS [the U.K&amp;#x27;s healthcare system]&lt;/i&gt; [emphasis added]&lt;p&gt;The WHO at least has been flat out wrong several times during this pandemic, such as telling people not to wear masks. Anointing one agency as the sole source of truth and censoring anything that contradicts it is not going to lead to a good outcome. People need to be able to question authorities.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>imgabe</author><text>I would prefer &lt;i&gt;content&lt;/i&gt; not to be prohibited at all. Content is not a problem. Actions are a problem. Watch all the videos you like telling you to burn down a cell tower. Once you &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; burn down a cell tower, then you go to jail. Perhaps we should also then hold the people telling people to burn down cell towers responsible, criminally and civilly, for the people who listen to them.&lt;p&gt;David Icke might not be so cavalier about telling people to burn down cell towers if he could be sued and&amp;#x2F;or jailed after people took him up on it.&lt;p&gt;As a general principle, I think we should focus on &lt;i&gt;actual&lt;/i&gt; consequences, not imagined, potential consequences.&lt;p&gt;This has the effect of also encouraging useful dissent. If you disagree with WHO and you turn out to be right, you can be properly credited with it. You are not automatically punished for the crime of daring to disagree with the WHO, and we all benefit from having more accurate, useful information.</text></comment>
<story><title>YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke</title><url>https://www.newsweek.com/david-icke-man-behind-coronavirus-5g-conspiracy-has-youtube-channel-shuttered-sharing-1501641</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>knzhou</author><text>Do you have a standard in mind that&amp;#x27;s better than the WHO? Would you prefer content prohibited on the basis of whether it sounds right or wrong to a random Google employee?</text></item><item><author>imgabe</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not going to shed a tear for David Icke, but this quote is very concerning:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 &lt;i&gt;as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and the NHS [the U.K&amp;#x27;s healthcare system]&lt;/i&gt; [emphasis added]&lt;p&gt;The WHO at least has been flat out wrong several times during this pandemic, such as telling people not to wear masks. Anointing one agency as the sole source of truth and censoring anything that contradicts it is not going to lead to a good outcome. People need to be able to question authorities.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>6nf</author><text>Nobody should be above scrutiny, that&amp;#x27;s the point!</text></comment>