And these debates should be open. It's incredible how hard getting data on clinical studies are vs. here our culture of open source.
As a scientist, I would prefer more open discussion. Because the conversations scientists have with each other is not what ends up getting told to the public, and many agendas impact that.
You know the climate change denial videos on youtube aren't "getting things in the open" but slick sales jobs for a particular viewpoint.
That's a lot of confidence to have in a very broken system given the replication crisis, ineffective peer review process, excessive and pervasive paywalls, and general high barrier to entry.
Youtube is actually pretty great platform for lots of science and educational channels. I could easily see a scenario where some very poorly done climate study is talked about on Youtube and it becomes demonetized simple because the algorithm believed it was 'climate change denial ism'.
Sure it is Youtube's right to do whatever they want and we are just 'lucky' that Youtube isn't controlled by anti-vax, climate change truthers, etc.
Lots of alternative scientific journals exist. Climate change denial is, in fact, well financed. There's nothing about a youtube ban that prevents alternative scientific research, even into things I'd considered absurd and despicable.
If we're going to ban instructional bomb construction videos then I think anti-vax stuff is perfectly acceptable as well. I really don't understand where this miscomprehension that you should be able to say anything you want on private platforms comes from - there have always limits even on public speech, and private platforms have traditionally refused to print or publish items that go too strongly against their corporate beliefs. This even extends into print media and editorial boards.
Smoking and Drinking also directly cause deaths, yet as a society we are fine with taking such levels of risks and let people in videos show that they are smoking and drinking too. And don't get me started on opoids prescriptions which kill way more people that COVID all things considered (in years of life cost) and for which nobody seems to lift any finger to stop the carnage.
Which is why it's wrong on so many levels to censor stuff, because orgs that do that have no clue and no principles and just follow a certain political agenda instead of any rational motive.
your comment has led to death too, by that kind of logic?
Science is just more forgiving and less dogmatic than religion. etc.
Science isn't done by youtube video battles but by debates in scholarly journals. Youtube is a medium for popularizing whatever content. Youtube seems well in its rights in banning content it considers harmful and in this case I'd agree with this ban.
That's not to say youtube's effective monopoly isn't concerning. I'd rather see ten providers but I'd like to see them all ban climate change, antivax and similarly noxious content - make people interested in the subject read long texts instead.
Video isn't good medium for sustained, coherent debate. In this instance, it's a means of broadcasting shallow propaganda to morons, or put less insultingly, those not using rational facilities to decide things.