My sense is that the denotation of the rule ("no contradicting the WHO") and the obvious connotation of the rule ("no cranks claiming Corona is a lie that you c

My sense is that the denotation of the rule ("no contradicting the WHO") and the obvious connotation of the rule ("no cranks claiming Corona is a lie that you can cure by drinking bleach") differ. My guess would be the intent and general enforcement of the rule will not be designed to preclude criticism of the form "The WHO is politically hobbled by needing Chinese cooperation, leading to awkward situations like the Taiwan exchange" or "The WHO was slow to adjust mask guidance in response to increasing on-the-ground evidence of asymptomatic transmission" or "The one study about surface life of Coronavirus is based on very limited research design parameters and the in-air survival number seems totally indefensible", or even an Ioaniddis-style "We're vastly overestimating the threat here" objection motivated by "good science" concerns. I wouldn't preclude, like every stupid automated Google system, that legitimate content would be removed. But I think the intent is not to remove scientifically-oriented criticism or guidance or expert debate or context. I think it's meant to remove cranks. I understand that denotation is important, just as it is when parsing say privacy policies or AUP documents or whatever -- and if people have criticism then YouTube should refine the language here. But we shouldn't blind ourselves to the fact that reality is primarily connotative. I have zero objection to major providers collectively deciding they don't want to do business with Del Bigtree. Others might. Regardless of where you end up on that, I think we can agree that the debate here is about Del Bigtree, not about epidemiologists disagreeing.