YouTube Opens 'Second Chance' Program To Creators Banned For Misinformation (theverge.com) 110
YouTube has launched a "second chance" program allowing some creators previously banned for COVID-19 or election misinformation to apply for new channels, as long as their violations were tied to policies that have since been deprecated. Bans for copyright or severe misconduct still remain permanent. The Verge reports: Under political pressure, the company had said last month that it was going to set up this pilot program for "a subset of creators" and "channels terminated for policies that have been deprecated." [...] The new pilot program kicks off today and will roll out to "eligible creators" over the "next several weeks," YouTube says. "We'll consider several factors when evaluating requests for new channels, like whether the creator committed particularly severe or persistent violations of our Community Guidelines or Terms of Service, or whether the creator's on- or off-platform activity harmed or may continue to harm the YouTube community."
The pilot won't be available if you were banned for copyright infringement or for violating YouTube's Creator Responsibility policies, the company says. If you deleted your YouTube channel or Google account, you won't be able to request a new channel "at this time." And YouTube notes that if your channel has been banned, you won't be eligible to apply for a new one until one year after it was terminated. "We know many terminated creators deserve a second chance -- YouTube has evolved and changed over the past 20 years, and we've had our share of second chances to get things right with our community too," YouTube says. "Our goal is to roll this out to creators who are eligible to apply over the coming months, and we appreciate the patience as we ramp up, carefully review requests, and learn as we go."
The pilot won't be available if you were banned for copyright infringement or for violating YouTube's Creator Responsibility policies, the company says. If you deleted your YouTube channel or Google account, you won't be able to request a new channel "at this time." And YouTube notes that if your channel has been banned, you won't be eligible to apply for a new one until one year after it was terminated. "We know many terminated creators deserve a second chance -- YouTube has evolved and changed over the past 20 years, and we've had our share of second chances to get things right with our community too," YouTube says. "Our goal is to roll this out to creators who are eligible to apply over the coming months, and we appreciate the patience as we ramp up, carefully review requests, and learn as we go."
misplaced quotation marks (Score:1, Insightful)
Think you meant to say Youtube Opens Second Chance Program To Creators Banned for 'Misinformation.'
Since 'misinformation' means 'something said the government does not like' and not a meaning that would be suggested by the plain rules of English.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
User name checks out. I think you're due for another booster.
No misinformation means misinformation (Score:1, Flamebait)
Do you really think the billionaires are going to take care of you when you have outlived your usefulness following the next election?
Trump is on track for a third term. You have to know what that means for American politics and democracy.
How much longer do you think Trump is going to cat
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> those vaccines have increased cancers by 75% - at least according to Vancouver General Hospital
Vancouver General Hospital (VGH) isn't directly stating a 75% increase in cancer cases but is preparing for a projected 75% rise in cancer deaths by 2050, as indicated by a September 2025 CBC News report on a new study in The Lancet. This trend is attributed to an aging and growing global and Canadian population, and healthcare systems need to prepare for the increased burden
Re:No misinformation means misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Prove it. Which vaccines and what types of cancers? Is it localized to Vancouver? Sounds like a bigger secret than the Epstein files.
Re:No misinformation means misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
The 75% claim is so telling. It belies either a fundamental misunderstanding of whatever statistics were presented or it's a flat out malicious lie.
If you could prove a 10% cancer increase with causation or strong correlation you would actually get the attention of a lot of the medical field and probably would get whatever vaccine it is pulled but the lie has to sound scary, absurdly so.
Re: (Score:1)
Never mind the fact that we all know it was anti-vaxxers and people claiming Biden stole the election falsely that YouTube pulled off their site and that they only did it because a lot of those people were putting YouTube at risk of being sued for liable by vaccine companies and the companies that build electio
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot to add that Trump fuck kids, are you sure you're OK?
At least for me, it's obvious who is the troll...
references:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
If you are then carry on and Trump fucks kids.
You tell me right fucking now
as Trump fucks kids where you think tire particulate goes when tires
wear down.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Is that Trump fucks kids and you voted for a kid fucker.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Well that and Trump fucks kids.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Also Trump fucks
Re: No misinformation means misinformation (Score:1)
"At least for me, it's obvious who is the troll..."
Yes, anyone who says Trump doesn't fuck kids when we know he does. Why do you defend child molesters? Are you one?
Re: No misinformation means misinformation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Got a problem with that? go argue with the Vancouver General Hospital staff and the Canadian Government.
Why would we argue with them? If we brought it up with the hospital or the Canadian government, they would say: "Oh golly. You're not one of those crazy 'turbo cancer' conspiracy theorists are you?" Then we would say: "No. We just wanted to get confirmation from you that this is a crazy conspiracy theory to try to reason with nutcases.". Then they would say something like: "Yes, we can confirm that this is a crazy conspiracy theory and that the COVID-19 vaccines do not cause 'Turbo-Cancer', eh."
Now, here's
Re: Yeah but the Mayo clinic says (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Even if they magically did cause cancer, it would take a whole lot more years for anyone to see a 75% rise in cancer cases.
That's the main problem, vaccines were rushed out without long term testing which understandably has people worried.
For people who were young and otherwise healthy the effects of COVID were generally minimal. Weighing up "risk of dying from COVID" vs "risk of long term side effects from minimally tested vaccine" some people made the choice not to take the vaccine, and why shouldn't they? That was their choice to make.
If in "a whole lot more years" there is proven a link between the vaccines and cancer, or o
Re: (Score:3)
So whereas the vaccines might cause a little short-term inflammation in the heart that goes away covid causes noticeable long-term damage.
To be clear, the base technology of the vaccine is not the likely cause, but rather the spike protein created by the mRNA that binds to the ACE2 receptor - an effect that also happens with the real virus except mostly in your lungs because it's not injected.
You are being lied too (Score:1)
If you ever decide you are tired of being lied to and you can stand having a woman talk to you I recommend Belle the ranch and Rebecca Watson over on youtube. Watson is a tad on the insufferable side but she does make good points. Belle is good fun though.
Good luck out there.
Re: (Score:3)
You think a good news source is people talking in a video clip?
I was reading published studies directly from the source before they even finished the trials.
The problem is people watching "TV" and thinking they understand a complex scientific topic.
Re: (Score:2)
So whereas the vaccines might cause a little short-term inflammation in the heart that goes away covid causes noticeable long-term damage.
To be clear, the base technology of the vaccine is not the likely cause, but rather the spike protein created by the mRNA that binds to the ACE2 receptor - an effect that also happens with the real virus except mostly in your lungs because it's not injected.
The real virus does not stay confined to your lungs, nor even mostly confined to your lungs. Viruses start by attacking the epithelial cells in your nose, mouth, and lungs, but then they quickly spread throughout your body.
Why do you think one of the most common first symptoms of COVID (*before* respiratory symptoms) is diarrhea? Do you think that your lungs just magically asymptomatically swell and push against your intestines? :-)
One of the best ways of tracking the true rate of COVID spread is through
Re: (Score:2)
The real virus does not stay confined to your lungs, nor even mostly confined to your lungs
Of course not - but it is a long way from the blood and the heart.
Why do you think one of the most common first symptoms of COVID (*before* respiratory symptoms) is diarrhea?
Because mucus full of the virus goes down the throat. Epithelial spreading from top to bottom.
If the actual virus was getting to your heart muscles it's already a very serious infection, even if it is relatively asymptomatic. The lungs are the direct conduit to the bloodstream, of course, but what do you think causes the clotting? The binding of the spike protein to the ACE2 receptor. If you forgot the main point I was making, it's that t
Re: Again this is not true (Score:2)
"Of course not - but it is a long way from the blood and the heart."
Did you just say that a virus affecting the lungs is far from the heart and the blood? Are you not familiar with even elementary school biology?
Re: (Score:2)
You only quoted one relevant bit of text. Here is the other:
The lungs are the direct conduit to the bloodstream, of course
This virus doesn't go much beyond epithelial tissue until the infection has gone on for some time.
Re: (Score:2)
The real virus does not stay confined to your lungs, nor even mostly confined to your lungs
Of course not - but it is a long way from the blood and the heart.
That's simply not true. COVID caused a 30% increase in heart attack deaths among young adults during the first two years of the pandemic, with undiagnosed myocarditis believed to be the primary culprit. Myocarditis and pericarditis are, respectively, inflammation of the heart muscle and the area around it, caused by an immune response to an infection.
So COVID absolutely can get into your blood, can infect blood cells, and can spread anywhere in your body. It isn't guaranteed to reach your heart, and in f
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not - but it is a long way from the blood and the heart.
The lungs - the organs designed for all of your blood to cycle through so that it can exchange CO2 for O2 in its red blood cells and which are directly built around the heart for biological efficiency and are specifically part of the cardiopulmonary system - are a long way from the blood and the heart? Care to elaborate on that some more?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, you don't think that the way the virus damages the body is through the spike proteins do you?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is its become endemic, containing it has totally failed. Those who are not young or healthy will absolutely be exposed to it sooner or later irrespective of what actions others take, and they are free to choose to take a vaccine (or not) too.
The risk calculations for the elderly will be different - being they have less time for any potential long term effects to manifest, they are more likely to have had kids already and less likely to have more, and they are at higher risk of serious effects if in
Re: (Score:2)
It was always eventually going to become endemic after a certain point. Possibly early containment could have stopped it cold, but that clearly was not going to happen in many places. Slowing it down, however, was a useful goal, especially early on when hospitals were overwhelmed, had not developed effective treatment protocols and were storing corpses in rented refrigerated trailers. Stalling the virus certainly provided time for the vaccines to come into play and treatments to become more effective. The p
Re: (Score:2)
Stalling it early is not relevant to people who don't want to take vaccines, as no vaccines were available at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, huh? It's not clear what you're trying to say there. The only readings I can glean for your first sentence seem to be contradicted by your second. All I can say is that there obviously is a good reason to delay something bad from happening right away when you don't have an available fix now, but might later. For example, the story of the Dutch boy who put his finger in the hole in the dike as an allegorical example. Or how about just thinking about basic first aid. Someone has a gash that's bleeding l
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, I had been told that the US election system was perfect and beyond critique. But what you are saying is that it is open to all kinds of mischief.
Literally nobody in his or her right mind has ever said that. What they have said is that cases of actual voter fraud (defined as voting without being eligible) are extremely rare and that the vote counting system is reasonably robust against interference with the actual vote counting process.
But the entire system still depends on people deciding to vote, and can easily be skewed by factors that dissuade people from doing so, like using voting machines that keep breaking, resulting in longer lines at the p
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, and what about channels such as one of mine that still has a community "warning" on it, simply because I made a video in which I suggested that the decision whether or not to get vaxxed should be an individual one, based on one's own risk profile and other factors. Apparently that was "medical misinformation". I refuse to take the "training" program required to remove that warning because that would be effectively accepting that I was in the wrong -- when I strongly believe I was not in the wrong a
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Who said I wasn't vaxxed? I did get vaxxed because I crunched the numbers and weighed up the risks and uncertainties. At 68 years of age I figured I'd be better off being vaccinated, even if there were unforeseen risks associated with the vax that may surface ten years down the road. My point was that others may have different risk factors so for them the results may be different. It's about freedom of choice.
As for "putting others' lives in danger" -- we were all told that vaccination would protect
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus also vaccines aren't 100%. In the OP's mind, he was "told" vaccines are protection and anything less than 100% is a LIE.
But look, we're 5 years on, he's clearly got strong opinions and hasn't taken the time to learn. He ain't listening.
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:2)
" we were all told that vaccination would protect us so why would we be worried about unvaccinated people in the general population eh? Unless we were being lied to?"
Protecting you is not the same as guaranteeing you don't be harmed, just as immunity doesn't mean you won't get an infection. You're appealing to stupidity and ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
As for "putting others' lives in danger" -- we were all told that vaccination would protect us so why would we be worried about unvaccinated people in the general population eh? Unless we were being lied to?
Please tell me you're just playing dumb and you actually do understand the basic concept of herd immunity?
Re: (Score:2)
As for "putting others' lives in danger" -- we were all told that vaccination would protect us so why would we be worried about unvaccinated people in the general population eh? Unless we were being lied to?
Sorry to reply twice, but I really just had to add: we were all told that bulletproof vests would protect us, so why would we be worried about falling off cliffs, or drinking poison or, and here's the big one, being shot by bullets? Unless we were being lied to.
The answer of course is that bulletproof vests definitely do protect you, and you can still totally die from lots of things when wearing one, even being shot with bullets. Even when they hit the vest rather than an exposed area not covered by the ves
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:1)
Too bad the individual lives with society so a decision to not vaccinate yourself meant you were putting other people lives in danger much less yourself. There was and still is no reasons to not get vaccinated so entertaining the idea that there is a reasonable choice for each individual is completely misleading. Serial killers have principals, [...]
Whoa there, young blood.
First, it's "principles", not "principals". That's a different thing, and makes you sound like a moron when you systematically get that wrong.
Second - and I'm talking here as someone who's vaccinated, has their kids vaccinated, and generally understands what it's about, and agree that vaccination ia the Right Thing To Do: fuck off will your holier than thou comparison of someone exercising their free right to own their body, and serial killers.
Yes, not getting vaccinated endangers so
Re: (Score:2)
As to the "valid reasons to not get vaccinated", I aleady gave you one: because everyone's own body os everyone's personal decision first, and any other consideration a distant second.
I mean yes, ostensibly, but the flip side of that is that a functioning society requires people to do certain things for the good of society that they often don't want to do. Obey the speed limit. Send your kids through a properly accredited school system. Pay taxes. Vaccination is no different.
At this point, we let COVID get out of control by ending lockdowns too early and not taking adequate steps to isolate people with severe immunodeficiency to ensure that they did not become variant manufacturing p
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:4, Insightful)
That is abhorrent, and extremely irresponsible medical advice. You should get things like flu vaccines to reduce the spread of a highly infectious disease, so you don't miss work unexpectedly, AND to avoid other unpleasant side effects or complications. Not just based on your individual chances of being put in the dirt by the disease.
It's not rocket surgery. The entire U.S. military requires annual flu shots despite being very young and fit compared to the general population. They do it for force readiness. They've done this long before cousin fucking magatards labeled everything they can't spell as "woke"
What kind of drooling TikTok moron gave you your opinions on the matter, because Jesus F Christ that is stupid medical advice and you should stop. YouTube is right to pull that bullshit.
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:1)
The US military mandated all sorts of vaccinations without informed consent, and with often with dubious reasoning, readiness be damned. Basically you're the governments Guinea pig, you'll take the shot and that's that.
For example, the use of the anthrax vaccine was halted when it made a whole bunch of those young able bodied men late to go to war back in 2004. There were all manner of congressional hearings about it; then they modified its use guidelines to include only soldiers likely to encounter it (bas
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yeah, and what about channels such as one of mine that still has a community "warning" on it, simply because I made a video in which I suggested that the decision whether or not to get vaxxed should be an individual one, based on one's own risk profile and other factors.
Yeah I really disagree with your channel having a warning put on it.
It should have been pulled offline completely, your rubbish medical misinformation can actually get people killed.
Re: (Score:2)
Drink Bleach! RFuK says good for U! (Score:2)
"Bleach will cure Covid!" could flood hospitals during a pandemic, making a bad problem worse.
I don't mind if people off themselves quietly in the woods where nobody will find their body, but if they fuck with our hospitals than their mistake becomes MY problem, and that's where their freedom ends. It's yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
Bleach *does* destroy covid, that's factually correct.
It will also destroy the host creature, that's a fact too.
You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe one fact and ignore the other.
Bleach is useful and has its place for disinfecting non organic objects which might have been contaminated.
People stupid enough to drink bleach would actually reduce hospital workload during a similar pandemic, since they'd die much quicker than the infected and thus no longer require ongoing treatment.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm curious if it would kill ALL who drink it, say a cup full, or would some survive (after a long hospital stay)?
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:4, Informative)
Since 'misinformation' means 'something said the government does not like'
How, the government has been in different hands for what, nine months now hasn't it?
So the government didn't recently change, what did? Oh, the President of the United States personally threatened and sued YouTube, who settled the bribe out of court by agreeing to ... ?
So, I'm sorry, can someone please explain which government is forcing Youtube to do something they don't want to? Which government coerced YouTube? It's blatantly obvious, Trump did.
Re: misplaced quotation marks (Score:4, Insightful)
That's right! Trump and his administration are certainly seeking control over media with more hamfisted, overtly threatening means.
But do you remember project jigsaw?
Back in the glory days, the government didn't have to threaten Google. They leapt at the opportunity to please them. They pretty much came to them asking, "where do you want your people installed?". In neoliberal philosopher Tim Snyder's terms, they certainly obeyed in advance. The aggressive punishment of people with even mild takes like "you should take the vaccine but we shouldn't force people to take vaccines" was probably not even government's idea, but the idea of small people eager to show which side they were on.
Are we better off now that the velvet glove is off? Not by much, honestly. But there's no way ahead where you don't come to terms with how damn bad the Biden-era responsible centrist consensus was.
Nope. (Score:1, Insightful)
Same as in personal relationships, it is inadvisable to go back to an abusive partner.
Capitulating to Trump (Score:1, Flamebait)
It's exactly the same kind of government by Mafia the Russians have.
Just like with Hitler complying doesn't really work. They always come back for more. But in America today everything is about this quarter and if you're thinking really far into the future next quarter. So everybody is just hoping to keep T
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows
Everyone? We've told you a million times: Stop exaggerating.
Do the dead get a second chance as well? (Score:1)
Re:Do the dead get a second chance as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean the ones who died due to these creators' misinformation about COVID.
Fortunately, the vast majority were covid deniers [sacurrent.com] so we won't have to hear from them again [the-sun.com].
Re-education camps optional? (Score:1)
Do they have to complete their time in the re-education camp first or not?
Lack of rational discussion (Score:2, Insightful)
A large demographic has lost the ability to have a rational reasoned discussion of any topic or idea that that demographic group disagrees with.
Their reaction to someone with an idea differing from their own belief is to try to shut down any discussion, personally shame, attack or punish the holder of the different idea or opinion.
The common thread is that stopping any message which does not agree with their own.
This is without even discussing the opposing idea on the merits of the idea.
Common things from t
Re:Lack of rational discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
I’m not going to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn’t believe in vaccines or plays word games with vaccines and inoculations.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. That's the "large demographic has lost the ability to have a rational reasoned discussion" part.
My point is about discussing with persons that have the capacity to hold a rational discussion a topic with data and facts and expertise to back up their viewpoint.
The point where experts in the field, licensed medical doctors in the infectious disease and immunology fields for example, being excluded from public discourse for asking for a fact based discussion, is the problem.
Less informed people, averag
Re: (Score:1)
The point where experts in the field, licensed medical doctors in the infectious disease and immunology fields for example, being excluded from public discourse for asking for a fact based discussion, is the problem.
Judging by their response, I feel quite convinced that these doctors and experts are exactly the people ArchieBunker isn't going to have a rational discussion with.
Re: Lack of rational discussion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no rational conversation to be had. Anti-vaxxers have heard the best, simplest arguments, and they have rejected the premise. You can no longer get there from here, so stop trying to reason with them. Their response will be something like rejecting the source of your data as untrustworthy, which is the most effective way to reject that which you don't want to entertain.
This is a good example of the old truism: you cannot counter an emotional argument with a logical one.
Case in point. A family frien
Well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know right? How many boosters did you get? I got 6.
It is a trap (Score:2)
Filtered due to preferences (Score:2)
Discussion about censorship is censored? Oh, the irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Filtered due to your own preferences. It's not censorship if you choose not to read something - no-one is stopping you reading it, just scroll to the top of the page and change your preferences to show everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore this (Score:2)
Did I get this right? (Score:2)
If a person got sevely sick or died after believing lies that seems less important than if the wrong song played in the background of the youtube video?
information (Score:2)
What about the creators banned for true information? Do they get to come back?
Why? (Score:2)
Re: "Mis-information" = BS Madup word ;-D (Score:2)
Because they are doing it for money so anything else is fraud
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are doing it for money so anything else is fraud
So an actor playing a doctor in a movie is fraud in your mind?
Re: (Score:2)
So an actor playing a doctor in a movie is fraud in your mind?
My dear, fine friend, your logical fallacy is the ridiculous example.
Re: (Score:1)
So an actor playing a doctor in a movie is fraud in your mind?
My dear, fine friend, your logical fallacy is the ridiculous example.
YouTube is mainly an entertainment platform, just like movies. Sure, it gets a lot of content that is actually educational. However no one in their right mind should be thinking of it as anything other than entertainment. There were a lot of medical professionals who were banned from YouTube over posting accurate information during the covid panic.
Re: (Score:2)
Misinformation is facts, presented in a way intended to lead viewers to a NOT Factual conclusion.
That is disinformation. [wikipedia.org]
Re: "Mis-information" = BS Madup word ;-D (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
During the 16th century very little was known about the moon. People could see it, but had no idea what it was or what might be there.
When you have thus unknown you get stories being made up for various reasons - just for fun, to placate curious kids, or to comfort people's fear of the unknown. In the case of the moon science has progressed sufficiently that these stories can now be disproven.
But then where do you draw the line? Is a work of fiction "misinformation" because it portrays something that does n
Re: (Score:2)
But then where do you draw the line? Is a work of fiction "misinformation" because it portrays something that does not exist, or does it get a pass because it's explicitly labelled as fiction?
It gets a pass because it does not purport to be the truth.
How about religion? Most religions describe all powerful deities and scientifically unexplainable miracles, none of which can be proven. Do we class religious teaching as misinformation too?
When religious teachings are limited to the existence of creator beings and deities and things that you can't see or interact with, no. They're just mythology. When they are limited to how you should behave at a high level, no. They're just philosophy. There are bright lines, though, like telling people how to vote, where religion stops being religion and starts being a political organization under the guise of religion, and that's not okay.
It a
Re: "Mis-information" = BS Madup word ;-D (Score:2)
Everyone that doesn't understand what misinformation is should irrigate their nasal passages with hot shallow pond water to boost activity of their immune system.
That's factual, it will make your immune system go wild. It's also misleading, and dangerous. But only if you believe in misinformation, if you don't, then make sure you get the water all the way up there for maximum effect.