1) Personally, I'd say that the search algorithm chosen should be customizable (there may be times you're looking for official sources AND times that you're loo

1) Personally, I'd say that the search algorithm chosen should be customizable (there may be times you're looking for official sources AND times that you're looking for alternative ideas). At the very least, the algorithm should be very transparent. In my book, this isn't too transparent because the commentary on their algorithm is hidden away in some blog post that maybe less than 0.1% of YouTube's visitors would ever see without purposefully seeking it out. 2) On medical videos, to cover their butt from liability and also tell people to seek verification of information, I think warning labels on the page advising people to also seek help about medical problems through official sources and also their doctors would be a good idea. It's sort of weird to me that Google doesn't already have warning labels on medical related videos: the only thing they actually do is try to shill the vaccine on Covid-19 videos. 3) Google is not a medical institution with perfect knowledge of reality in the realm of health. They shouldn't be the arbiters of truth, only the platform that delivers ideas. Hell, even the best doctors in the world do not have perfect knowledge of reality and their fancy titles are not necessarily proof that their ideas are true. 4) What really bothers me is that progress beyond officially authorized medical ideas can be stopped by these efforts. Every good and valid idea is "unsupported by official sources" until it suddenly is. We've all heard stories about about the era when surgeons washing their hands was outright scoffed at by the medical community. If YouTube was around hundreds of years ago, they'd probably be calling the people who told surgeons to wash their hands conspiracy theories and cranks. There may be hundreds of nuggets of wisdom in unofficially sanctioned sources that would do the world good.