Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rather than have ideological gate keeping at every level Are you taking the position that all gatekeeping is ideological? Because otherwise, bringing it up when the topic seems to be gatekeeping of factual understanding seems off topic.
It clearly is in this case. Nothing YouTube is doing is anything to do with factual understanding - Google's understanding of the topics in question is extremely poor and certainly not justified with any medical evidence. Their FAQ on the topics simply says they'll block "medical misinformation" which they define as anything the WHO disagrees with. As the WHO has repeatedly disagreed with itself there's no way to be…
This seems entirely sensible to me.
> As the WHO has repeatedly disagreed with itself
Unless I misunderstand you, you're saying this as if it's a bad thing. No one's saying the the decision-making processes at the WHO are perfect, but shifts in stance and advice in response to newly available evidence is not "disagreeing with oneself". It's fundamentally how science works.
In fact, most of the criticisms from credible experts have been that the WHO have been too resistant to updating their positions (in the face of the increasingly overwhelming evidence last year that the virus is airborne, for example).
> this is pure authoritarianism. No fact-finding has gone into this decision.
You consider their policy of deferring to an internationally recognised public health body to inform their content guidelines to be an example of authoritarianism?
If so, what alternative "fact-finding" approaches would you suggest?
Because if we imagine for the sake of argument that YouTube somehow had the means, resources and competence to conduct their own rigorous studies and research, in such a notoriously complex field as public health, and used this to inform their content moderation decisions instead of information from the WHO, how would this be any less "authoritarian"?