YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

This happens all over the place; policies around abuse end up getting applied to people that report that they are being abused, policies around misinformation get applied to people who report that misinformation is happening. It's kind of big news that Trump is still pushing this narrative in 2022. It actually is entirely legitimate to report that he's still saying this, he's likely to be the Republican candidate in 2024, people should know that he hasn't stopped making this claim.

There's a debate about disinformation censorship that's all about whether or not censorship is the right way to stop people from telling these lies, but even before we get to that debate, regardless of whether or not someone believes that censorship actually helps prevent the spread of misinformation -- the reality is that platforms like Youtube/Twitter are too big to effectively apply many of these rules, and often they end up affecting the opposite of their intended targets.

We have these high-level conversations about whether or not censorship on broad platforms that are nevertheless private is appropriate, and there's some value in having those conversations. But how often do we step back and ask, "are the platforms even capable of pulling off the censorship that they claim in the first place? Is Youtube even capable of censoring election misinformation without also censoring a bunch of other stuff that they didn't intend to?"

A conversation about censorship on tech platforms that doesn't take into account how clumsy these filters are in practice isn't really an accurate reflection of the reality. We have debates about whether or not private censorship on a broad scale is a good idea, but it's not even clear that any of these tech platforms are capable of doing censorship in a targeted way for any context-dependent topic.

It reminds me of how we used to have a bunch of conversations about the morality of self-driving cars making moral choices during accidents, but you zoom out and realize that even those debates are just incredibly optimistic, and in reality the cars just crash into guardrails because their sensors aren't good enough. We should not go into these conversations assuming that accurately targeted censorship of the kind that Youtube proposes even is possible at the global scale Youtube wants to operate on, we have a lot of data showing that large platforms aren't really capable of moderating with the same degree of precision as smaller platforms.

...

Mearsheimer's books include Conventional Deterrence (1983), which won the Edgar S. Furniss Jr. Book Award; Nuclear Deterrence: Ethics and Strategy (co-editor, 1985); Liddell Hart and the Weight of History (1988); The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), which won the Lepgold Book Prize; The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007); and Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (2011). His articles have appeared in academic journals like International Security and popular magazines like the London Review of Books. He has written op-ed pieces for The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune.[9]

Mearsheimer has won several teaching awards. He received the Clark Award for Distinguished Teaching when he was a graduate student at Cornell in 1977, and he won the Quantrell Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching at the University of Chicago in 1985. In addition, he was selected as a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar for the 1993–1994 academic year. In that capacity, he gave a series of talks at eight colleges and universities. In 2003, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[9] He is the recipient of the American Political Science Association's 2020 James Madison Award, which is presented every three years to an American political scientist who has made distinguished scholarly contributions. The Award Committee noted that Mearsheimer is "one of the most cited International Relations scholars in the discipline, but his works are read well beyond the academy as well."[10]

Mearsheimer's works are widely read and debated by 21st-century students of international relations. A 2017 survey of US international relations faculty ranks him third among "scholars whose work has had the greatest influence on the field of IR in the past 20 years."[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

I very much do not agree with Mearsheimer's point of view, but describing his lectures as "Russian propaganda" suggests that you are the one in the grip of an extreme form of propaganda. Rethink where you're getting your information.