I want to clarify that I never said the ideas weren't worth spreading in the first place. I only raised the question that if, for the sake of argument, we accep

I want to clarify that I never said the ideas weren't worth spreading in the first place. I only raised the question that if, for the sake of argument, we accept the premise that they aren't worth spreading, then why would a media outlet promote the existence of the ideas in order to villainize some random YouTuber? The cost/benefit isn't there if you believe that the ideas aren't worth spreading, since you necessarily must spread them in order to run an article like this. I'm not familiar enough with the claims made in the Plandemic video, or QAnon for that matter, so why should I accept the blanket dismissal of all of them as "debunked conspiracy theories?" If news outlets think these ideas are worth writing about at all, then they should at least try do so from a neutral perspective. I agree that not all ideas have the same value, and most of them are worthless, but I will always oppose censorship. Tech companies are not qualified to be information police. It's one thing for YouTube to promote claims made by the World Health Organization (which spread debunked information about human-to-human transmission early on in the plague), but it's quite another for them to delete any ideas that question their preferred narratives. I believe that is more dangerous to society than the spread of mis- and disinformation.