YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

My guess would be the intent and general enforcement of the rule will not be designed to preclude criticism of the form "The WHO is politically hobbled by needing Chinese cooperation, leading to awkward situations like the Taiwan exchange" or "The WHO was slow to adjust mask guidance in response to increasing on-the-ground evidence of asymptomatic transmission" or "The one study about surface life of Coronavirus is based on very limited research design parameters and the in-air survival number seems totally indefensible", or even an Ioaniddis-style "We're vastly overestimating the threat here" objection motivated by "good science" concerns.

I wouldn't preclude, like every stupid automated Google system, that legitimate content would be removed. But I think the intent is not to remove scientifically-oriented criticism or guidance or expert debate or context. I think it's meant to remove cranks.

I understand that denotation is important, just as it is when parsing say privacy policies or AUP documents or whatever -- and if people have criticism then YouTube should refine the language here. But we shouldn't blind ourselves to the fact that reality is primarily connotative.

I have zero objection to major providers collectively deciding they don't want to do business with Del Bigtree. Others might. Regardless of where you end up on that, I think we can agree that the debate here is about Del Bigtree, not about epidemiologists disagreeing.

The problem here, and it may just be an issue with the internet as a medium, or certain tendencies within technically-minded individuals, seems to be an overriding mistrust of nuance and complexity that leads to polarized, intransigent opinions.

Because really I can see both sides of that argument. On the one hand, society has an obligation to protect itself from bad actors, and part of that necessitates an ability by governments to surveil their citizens to a degree. On the other hand, people have a right to privacy and personal liberty, and governments' power shouldn't be absolute. But no one wants to hear that the only options which balance these concerns are the messy and imperfect ones where we try to do the best we can with imperfect information, and at times conflicting motives and agendas, and laws that require interpretation based on context, rather than being executed like code. The world isn't black and white, it's grey on grey on grey.

I can also see the other side of my own position in this thread - Youtube and other platforms could certainly use their outsized cultural influence and right to moderate content to suppress legitimate information or political activism. I just work from the apparently controversial premise that falsehoods do exist and that it does society no good to allow them to spread, even in the name of "free speech," and disagree with the premise that just because there is no universally acceptable, mathematically provable, perfectly objective answer to "who decides who the liars, cranks and con artists are" which doesn't carry a risk of abuse or hypocrisy, doesn't mean the only acceptable answer is that "liars, cranks and con artists don't exist, and no one gets to decide otherwise."