📺 YouTube CEO: We’ll ban any coronavirus content against WHO guidelines

[Adam]

YouTube CEO: We’ll ban any coronavirus content against WHO guidelines

YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts WHO coronavirus recommendations, according to CEO Susan Wojcicki.

www.verdict.co.uk

What do you think about this news that YouTube will ban any coronavirus-related content that goes against WHO guidelines?

I am totally torn, I can not make my mind up.

On one hand, we have a serious misinformation problem but on the other, where does the censorship end?

Do these monopolistic platforms have a responsibility to uphold free speech given that they make any serious competition mostly unfeasible?

 

[Sharkie]

Honestly, good on them for trying to stop the spread of misinformation. But I think it would be better to put a warning if they find a video to be suspicious. That way you don't hit the censorship sketchiness, but you also are trying to combat misinformation.

It's the same problem with Amazon becoming a platform for white supremacists (The Hate Store: Amazon’s Self-Publishing Arm Is a Haven for White…). Where do you draw the line between allowing all content and censoring very obviously bad things?

It's such a fine line, and I truly don't know what the right solution is.

 

[Dominic]

YouTube CEO: We’ll ban any coronavirus content against WHO guidelines

YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts WHO coronavirus recommendations, according to CEO Susan Wojcicki.

www.verdict.co.uk

What do you think about this news that YouTube will ban any coronavirus-related content that goes against WHO guidelines? I am totally torn, I can not make my mind up. On one hand, we have a serious misinformation problem but on the other, where does the censorship end? Do these monopolistic platforms have a responsibility to uphold free speech given that they make any serious competition mostly unfeasible?

I am completely against this. For me, the base problem lies already in the fact that there is practically just one source for video material and this source is owned by a commercial company. I've seen multiple youtube videos deleted with content i found totally okay. In my opinion, it's very bad if there is a single instance which can decide what is allowed to say and what not (hello 1984). People should be able to form their own opinion on a basis which is as heterogenous as possible. The big media companies are already in very few hands, we should use the internet better. I would love to have something similar to youtube, but non-commerical and more open and democratic as wikipedia. No censoring.

 

[Gummibeer]

I am completely against this. For me, the base problem lies already in the fact that there is practically just one source for video material and this source is owned by a commercial company. I've seen multiple youtube videos deleted with content i found totally okay. In my opinion, it's very bad if there is a single instance which can decide what is allowed to say and what not (hello 1984). People should be able to form their own opinion on a basis which is as heterogenous as possible. The big media companies are already in very few hands, we should use the internet better. I would love to have something similar to youtube, but non-commerical and more open and democratic as wikipedia. No censoring.

Wikipedia isn't comparable. It's a crowdsource. It would only be comparable if the crowd could alter image and audio track of a video - or in other words: the crowd could censor it.

I would be interested in what they put in the "against WHO guidelines"-bin?
Is a video discussing face masks and finding a lot against them already against WHO? Or only if they recommend to don't wear them? 🤔
And how important is the "guidelines" word? Or is a video discussing the failures of WHO already banned? 🤔

If it's done right it follows the anti fake news algorithms and companies. Which is also censorship but both are dangerous for our life.

 

[Dominic]

Wikipedia isn't comparable. It's a crowdsource. It would only be comparable if the crowd could alter image and audio track of a video - or in other words: the crowd could censor it.

I would be interested in what they put in the "against WHO guidelines"-bin?
Is a video discussing face masks and finding a lot against them already against WHO? Or only if they recommend to don't wear them? 🤔
And how important is the "guidelines" word? Or is a video discussing the failures of WHO already banned? 🤔

If it's done right it follows the anti fake news algorithms and companies. Which is also censorship but both are dangerous for our life.

I agree that Wikipedia is not a perfect example. But what I meant is a system which is not controlled by a profit-oriented organization and kind of democratic (whatever that means exactly). The thing is: in wikipedia multiple people can decide what the 'truth' is. In youtube one instance can delete movies. Wikipedia (and Wikidata, Wiktionary) is a good example how forms can work which are more open, more diverse and more inclusive (I know that there are still a lot of problems).

I don't get this sentence: «If it's done right it follows the anti fake news algorithms and companies. Which is also censorship but both are dangerous for our life.» Can you please elaborate

 

[Gummibeer]

I don't see a problem in the profit-oriented. For profit they would only play ads every 5secs in those videos. 😅 It's more about the single organization of truth which could get problematic.

I meant that this censorship, for this exact specific case and assumed done right and not misused, is something like the fake-news filters on Facebook and so on.
The idea is to protect the people. It's not about protecting an institution (WHO) but the humans. There are tons of assholes spreading dangerous lies about Corona. And because a virus doesn't only hurt the single "stupid" person like a broken leg but the whole society they try to suppress these lies.

 

[Dominic]

There are lot of difficult but very important philosophical questions involved in this:

1. Is there something like objective truth?
2. If yes, can we recognize it?
3. If yes, how to decide who is right when there are contradicting opinions about truth?

Filtering out 'fake news' sounds alright on first sight, but is very dangerous. Galileos statement that the earth orbits the sun was considered fake news in those times. I personally prefer that people can decide themselves what they consider true or not, i don't like Google doing that for me and not even let me see it.

 

[LividJay]

But I think it would be better to put a warning if they find a video to be suspicious. That way you don't hit the censorship sketchiness, but you also are trying to combat misinformation.

I think this would be the best way to handle this. YouTube shouldn't be dictator of content.