Care to explain how its not? Let me preface this by saying that I have not seen the video, but even if they said that only the flying spaghetti monster can save you from ARDS, I'd rather live in a world with free exchange of information (even misinformation).

Why do you believe the right of bad-faith actors to load disinformation into the minds of the gullible is more important than the right of uninvolved third parties to live?

It's one thing to spread disinformation that leads people to harm themselves (for example, by encouraging them to drink laundry detergent or bleach). It's quite another to spread disinformation that harms third parties. Third parties have no say in what disinformation the gullible choose to consume but they will be subject to the consequences of the gullible believing what they've been told.

Every polity that has something resembling a right to freedom of speech imposes limits on that speech when it can harm others. Libel, slander, and incitement are not generally tolerated. Restricting the spread of disinformation that increases the impact of a deadly pandemic is no different.

I do agree, however, that the final arbiter of what speech is acceptable should not rest with Youtube or any other private entity. This is a question for elected governments and the judiciary.

What if disinformation leads to the gullible placing "bad-faith actors" in our elected governments and judiciary? Just imagine!

We must hedge our bets and let disinformation be cut down wherever rational minds exist (for now).

And you don't think Libel and slander laws are sufficient? If someone says something obviously untruthful we already have the legal framework to deal with it.

This is just a private company taking control of information. Who is to say that they arent the ones spreading misinformation themselves?

OAN is free to spread their nonsense on their website.

Yes and when godaddy and visa pulls their services they are free to become their own domain registrar and credit card company as well!

Yes, anyone can become their own domain registrar if need be.

As for credit card processing services, generally Visa and Mastercard are enforcing policies of the banks that actually provide the credit; they simply take the heat because they're paid to. But on that note, both the CEOs of Visa and Mastercard are...Republican donors...almost exclusively...and so would, if anything, favor right-leaning websites such as OAN.

> As for credit card processing services, generally Visa and Mastercard are enforcing policies of the banks that actually provide the credit;

Generally! I know at least one American comedian who is banned by both for taking jabs at you know who...

And no you just dont become a domain registrar like that. You need to be quite privileged to do that.

I don't actually know who you're referring to, either on the comedian side or the "you know who" side) but if you're referring to Kathy Griffith she is gainfully employed in Hollywood again and was never banned by Visa or Mastercard. She simply lost a bunch of gigs because people didn't want to be associated with someone who thought it was funny to joke about beheading the president (regardless of whether they agreed with her sentiments).

And becoming a domain registrar requires a demonstration of technical capabilities, but otherwise does not require any privileges. Literally anyone can apply to become a domain registrar if they can demonstrate that they actually know how to do it.

Also could you care to explain? I elaborated my viewpoint. Kind of lukewarm of you to avoid that.

OAN spread falsehoods, not information. If they choose to spread falsehoods, they're free to do so on their own website, but they don't have free reign to do so on someone else's website.

(If they want to prove that their claims are correct in the fact of everyone else saying they are wrong, the burden is on them to prove their claims, which they didn't even bother to do. They just claimed that something is a cure for COVID without evidence, and provided an affiliate link to a website where you could buy the supposed cure. That's not reporting, that's advertising.)

CNN spreads falsehoods and a lot more than OANN.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. You can't post like this, regardless of how right you are on the issues, or feel you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Go refer to their mission statement: "organize the worlds information and make it universally accessible and useful".

> Additionally, due to repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation policy and other channel monetization policies, we’ve suspended the channel from the YouTube Partner Program and as a result, its monetization on YouTube.

It seems that their mission statement is not in conflict with their approach in this matter.

Information, rather than disinformation.

Oh would you people please stop pretending like we understand this pandemic perfectly and all it will take is masks and 6ft of space to make it disappear. It’s ALL speculation, no one has the perfect solution, they’re just opinions. Stop confusing multiple opinions as fact.

The video that was taken down and resulted in the strike was a claim that a guaranteed vaccine existed. It sounds like you would also disagree with that claim, and believe it to be misinformation, as YouTube did, in this case.

Stop confusing scientific consensus as "multiple opinions". You are muddying the waters to shove your right-wing indoctrinated crap in front of people.

yeah, information. Not disinformation.

Disinformation is not useful and needn't be made universally accessible.

Granted. I'm still deeply uncomfortable with the idea of Google deciding what is and isn't disinformation. Twitter's approach of appending information links to tweets about disputed topics isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than removal.

And disinformation is what ever the tyrant says it is. If it’s wrong, prove it dont silence it.

Suppose, hypothetically, that someone with malicious intent installed an advertising billboard, next to your home, that falsely accused you of having committed a horrific crime. Suppose, further, that you lost your job and your family because of the false allegations on that billboard. Would you work to get that billboard taken down or would you put up your own billboard to deny the allegations and call it a day?

Proving disinformation wrong does not make it go away and the answer to malicious speech is not more speech.

On what grounds WOULD YOU SUE I WONDER??

You’ve proven the purpose to YouTube taking the video down here: to avoid being sued because misinformation CAUSES DAMAGE.

You would “assume” the people you work with are “intelligent” enough to know better?

Man. You have a disgust for an imaginary enemy that’s very hypocritical and oxymoronic.

It so easy for people to invent an enemy nowadays. Youtube just behaved exactly how you described you would in this metaphor, but instead of taking the closet rational explanation, you have to invent an enemy that aligns to this emotionally driven agenda.

We’re all on the same team. You’re just refusing to settle down and see that.

It’s like the whole damn world is so starving for conflict to the point of whipping up imaginary tales to stoke it out... why???

If zombie novels change the infection from biological to psychological and the thing those zombies starve for isn’t flesh but relentless hatred, that novel about people eating their own families becomes a true prophecy.