> until some Institution (CDC/WHO/etc) decides on a Consensus of Truth, and that this Consensus of Truth
No need to draw unfounded "implicit" proposals. I explicitly invoked a body of everyone with domain expertise to evaluate claims, not a singular institution.
Those people often do connect via institutionS created to support and benefit from their work and its utility, like professional associations, journals and trade publications, domain-specific forums, research arms, university departments.
The emphasized plural in institutionS should underscore the point that as neat a rhetorical flourish the invocation of an oppressive capital-I Institution is, it's actually substantially wrong as a way of engaging this topic. The actual truth is not going to be somehow hamstrung or stamped out if the stewards of a large public platform like YouTube follow the conversations in these communities of expertise on some topics rather than letting Lone Gunmen lead them into controversy-view battle against it.
Like Paul Graham recently said "Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they're proposed by reasonable domain experts." The first best way to tell if someone is a domain expert is to become one; the second best is to see if the maverick can convince other domain experts.
If collective expertise itself sounds oppressive to you, wait until you try the oppression from giving authority to collective ignorance.
> the efficacy of wearing masks?
If this is talking about the surgeon general's take circa Feb/Mar 2020, I welcome its admission to this discussion, because it's actually an illustration about the problems of mass communication and how someone can say something where every last word is defensible and most of it holds up over a year later ... and yet harmful mass misunderstanding (and a handle for disinformation) can follow. And that should encourage people towards more cautious use/responsibility when it comes to media reach.
And still, even with all the problems with that... the official narrative that you seem eager to characterize as potentially misleading or oppressive had actually fixed itself, accompanied with accessible arguments and demonstrations within months.
> As for YouTube being “mass media”, come on—it’s filled with random crap uploaded by members of the public.
Walter Cronkite broadcast on narrow-producer mass-audience media.
Youtube is both mass-audience AND mass-producer. Some videos on the long tail see a few dozen views. Some videos have reached more of the world than Cronkite ever did and may still be doing so long after everyone who ever heard his voice live or even remembers his name is dead.
Seems to me that doesn't make YouTube any less "mass."