I was defending Facebook for removing anti-quarantine events. There's a difference between mere opinions versus actions that directly risk the public health of

I was defending Facebook for removing anti-quarantine events. There's a difference between mere opinions versus actions that directly risk the public health of non-participants and I think Facebook is nailing it. However, Google has gotten it wrong: 1. As others have said, WHO has not earned this trust to date and is also a political organization, not one that is independent. 2. There were other options available, such as demonetization. Stopping people from profiting over putting out information that could hurt people seems more legit to me. They also could have used disclaimers, like the article mentions Facebook is doing for similar content. 3. Another option available to them? Limit the promotion of these videos through recommendations. I get why Google wouldn't want to actively be promoting videos that give terrible misinformation, so they can decide not to promote while still allowing the video to be posted. This is their normal policy for content that is considered "harmful misinformation." (Which was strengthened last year.) Why not use existing policy? Edit: One example Google could give of precedent is that they removed videos of people encouraging and participating in the Tide Pod Challenge: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16902990/youtube-tide-pod-challenge-video-take-down-community-guidelines-removal https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16902990/youtube-tide-pod... However, I'd actually be fine with them removing video of people drinking bleach to combat coronavirus. And maybe even just encouraging others to do so. But taking vitamin C? (An actual example in the article.)