>The 99.99999% case scenario concerns videos that are saying '5g caused coronavirus'

If this were the case, they could simply announce that their policy is to ban videos that blame coronavirus on 5G.

In practice, they will probably be banning a lot more videos than simply ones which blame coronavirus on 5G.

Might has something to with it being easier to come up with new crackpot theories than announcing policy changes. Kind of like "then debunk the conspiracy" doesn't really work, since this requires a disproportional amount of effort. Society might be able to handle this additional effort in a "low noise" environment, but hardly when motivated actors got their foot in the door already.

Yes, I agree. My point in that comment was not to debate the merits of a general policy vs specific policy, but to dispell the idea that the general policy would only be used for the specific case of corona virus and 5G. It seems that you agree.

>only be used for the specific case of corona virus and 5G.

There's nothing in any of my comments that suggests the policy would only address the specific case of 5g.

The technical correctness of your comment isn't of practical significance when you argue as follows:

>The 99.99999% case scenario concerns videos that are saying '5g caused coronavirus', and meanwhile you're trying to tie up everybodies attention with special cases that don't represent the majority of cases. People get disoriented with special cases and trick questions.

The example of 5g is used here to illustrate a whole vast range of conspiracy theories that can be expressed in nearly infinite permutations. If you really can't understand the role that the 5g example is playing to illustrate a class of examples and insist on arguing against just that example specially, you are completely, and boy do I mean completely missing the point and wasting both my time and yours.

Well, than I don't know what to say to you. I have already explained my view on the proportions, I have already given argument and explanation for it, and you seem to be intent on not supporting your own conclusions apart from a rather lame "you're a contrarianist" argument.

Why not actually defend your arguments and attack mine instead of circling about the issue with "this actual real life example is a what if hypothetical" and hastily drawn up dichotomies?

(Particularly this hammering that these are contrived examples is bordering on the ridiculous: we know this is true!)

You've lost your benefit of the doubt with this comment.

>(Particularly this hammering that these are contrived examples is bordering on the ridiculous: we know this is true!)

I'm just going to note you agree that these examples are contrived yet nevertheless want to debate them, apparently to performatively exhibit your appreciation for the values open-mindedness and free speech.

That's a not a constructive use of anybody's time. It's a frivolous distraction. Youtube is doing what they can to save lives by stopping misinformation in the face of a global pandemic. If you're more interested in turning this into a navel gazing exercise, I'd say you're suffering from a serious lack of perspective.

More like youtube is doing what they can to support a certain political position with disregard for human lives. If anything the WHO recommendations themselves are misinformation.

>Youtube is doing what they can to save lives by stopping misinformation...

I'm shocked that anyone would believe that this is an honest framing of YouTube's motivation.

What do you think their real motivation is? Take advantage of this event to take their place as the Ministry of Truth and censor their way into being at the top of the New World Order? Or maybe they really just weren't happy with airing content at their scale that's practically guaranteed to help cause a lot of people to hurt themselves. (Or they think their advertisers aren't happy with doing that... which I think is pretty equivalent, because it involves people feeling the same thing leading to the same result.)

> What do you think their real motivation is?

How about political pressure?

I try not to engage with people who go directly to snarky extremist characterization, as above. But yes, political agendas are a factor here, as is simple appeasement.

Who are they trying to appease? Trump? What agenda are they pushing specifically? "Don't get yourself infected or do ridiculous dangerous things to try to cure yourself"? Is that specific agenda bad?