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.