[pyronite]

I disagree. If someone is posting misinformation according to these standards, I'm happy about YouTube taking such things down.

How can we have an informed electorate when misinformation (whether intentional or not) is allowed to propagate? We know at this point that incendiary content tends to spread faster than the often-boring truth. Turning a blind eye is a race to the bottom that encourages political parties and those with an agenda to create more of this misleading content.

They give a list so you have some guidelines. Ultimately, you can argue with the guidelines and generally agreed-upon facts, and I'm sure many will.

[vorpalhex]

Who gets to define misinformation?

The lab leak theory was misinformation at one point. Wearing masks was misinformation at one point.

The problem with censorship is that no man is fit to play the censor.

[fighterpilot]

YouTube deciding what is and isn't misinformation has a positive side effect in that it indirectly protects the first amendment through the middle ground of private voluntary self-regulation.

1A proponents need to understand that there's a grey area between outright incitement to violence and otherwise. Within that grey area lies conspiracy theories and hate speech which can motivate actual harmful and illegal activity downstream if these ideas become sufficiently widespread. It's plausible that the unmoderated hate speech on 8chan motivated numerous lone wolf shooters, given how many manifestos have been posted there.

While we may want this speech to be legal (I largely do), we should not want to voluntarily assist in the spreading of this speech above and beyond the legal requirements of 1A. Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left and that sentiment isn't totally invalid if we zoom into specific examples of speech motivating heinous outcomes. So nipping a real problem in the bud with private self-regulation seems to be the least slippery slopey outcome of them all.

[belltaco]

>The lab leak theory was misinformation at one point

So? We know more about it now, so the earlier wild claims without evidence or proof were definitely misinformation at the time, intended to deflect blame from the ineptness of the politicians in power in feb 2020.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

I for one, am comfortable with the orthodoxy. The powers that be do not know how heresy will express itself, so it makes sense for them to be ambiguous about what is allowed. Why limit the orthodoxy’s ability to censor what they deem to be subversive disinformation?

I would rather ten true facts be censored than let one piece of misinformation go free.

/s

[smitty1e]

These diabolical moves are sold as purely reasonable moves that only a reactionary nitwit would object to, yes.

[ekianjo]

> How can we have an informed electorate when misinformation (whether intentional or not) is allowed to propagate?

It's not up to youtube to define what is Misinformation, if they even have a little tiny pretense of being a platform and not a publisher.