> Now any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19, as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and local health authorities is i

> Now any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19, as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and local health authorities is in violation of YouTube policies. > This includes conspiracy theories which claim that the symptoms are caused by 5G. Yeah, fair point. But it's a red herring. > For borderline content that could misinform users in harmful ways, we reduce recommendations. We'll continue to evaluate the impact of these videos on communities around the world. This one is KEY. Truth is, the majority of views comes from the Recommended, Trending and Next to Play. No one without a direct link will see your video, if it's nerfed by the algorithm. Checkmate. Corona is a very heated topic with many unknowns. Deciding what can and can not be labeled as misinformation is thus very tricky even for an expert, because there is a very fine line between misinformation and speculation (which is different in the sense that it's done in good faith and thus perfectly fine). Who's going to make these decisions? A private corp with zero transparency? We sorely need very clear distinction (maybe even legal - e.g. a framework for Terms of Service) between media and medium. With the former being free to set arbitrary rules, push agendas, ban otherwise harmless content, fuck with content promotion in whatever ways they want, etc. And the latter providing just the infrastructure and technical means to publish content with minimal governance. Status of being either of these must be granted upfront and then prohibited to change. Otherwise every "social media" platform will eventually mutate into a weaponized propaganda machine, promoting the interests of its stakeholders and greater powers-that-be and suppressing any dissenting opinion. This temptation is evidently impossible to resist.