I'm a little confused about exactly what is being claimed here - how do we know that Vinay is the one who made this "demand"? All the article says about this is:
> When YouTube notified Howard of the demand request, it included an email address for Prasad, which is identical to the email address that is linked to Prasad’s now inactive podcast, called Plenary Session.
What does "included an email address" mean exactly?
The reason I ask is that, if he did actually issue such a demand, this strikes me as wildly out of character for him. I don't know Vinay super duper well, but I've been on several multi-hour calls with him, and I have always found him to be a very thoughtful and high-integrity scientist.
It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative, and certainly not a right-wing one. And he had thoughts about the nature of knowledge and the future of the internet that are consistent with what most of us here on HN observe.
Moreover, the content that was removed in this case was not anything that he'd be ashamed of; it was all fairly reasonable observations, mostly about the collateral effects of lockdown policies and the lack of a scientific framework for measuring their impact.
All of his more 'firebrand' content - especially his (IMO, warranted) criticism of Scott Gottleib and the underhanded influence of Pfizer at FDA, remain on the internet (much on his channels where, presumably if he was bothered by it, he'd remove himself).
I'd really like to know for sure that he himself issued this demand. That will be a really disappointing thing to learn.
Obviously whether it was him or just someone who put his email address on a takedown form, it's wrong for YouTube to capitulate to such a ridiculous demand.
269
156