Imagine being forced to remove this article, the server provider cuts off service, and your domain banned because these kind of articles have violated terms of services.
I usually find that if you have to make an analogy for any reason other than explaining something technically complex, your position is probably faulty. E.g. in this case, I'd call this a false equivalence. Rather than making an analogy, you should explain directly why YouTube's policy is immoral or dangerous, rather than indirectly pointing at some other scenario, which will always differ in many relevant and irrelevant ways by the simple nature of it being a different scenario. It needlessly complicates the conversation.
Your video gets deleted, your channel gets a warning or a ban. Seems equivalent to what YouTube is doing to youtubers that posts information inconsistent with WHO.
> Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy
This looks like the CEO misquoting the policy. I linked to the actual policy. Where does it say what you claim?
> "Now any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19, as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and local health authorities is in violation of YouTube policies."
This is in violation for spreading harmful medical misinformation, not for contradicting the WHO, which (once again) is not prohibited by YouTube policy.
> There's a convenient feature called search on HN or any other websites. I think you might want to use it.
Oh yeah, believe some outdated policy than the CEO's recent interview. That's some quality fact checking right there! Congrets on your bleeding edge method of fact checking.
> believe some outdated policy than the CEO's recent interview
One is an actual policy that the employees follow. The other is just a quote taken out of context. The interview wasn't about launching a new policy. Instead, the CEO mentioned what YouTube was already doing in passing in a broad-ranging interview and did so loosely.
It's really not that hard to understand. You're acting like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
That process of finding the relevant and irrelevant differences is how some people think. I can go farther astray by saying "This copy and paste is immoral and dangerous because DRY" than "This copy and paste seems lazy, but would I object to it if it were generated code?" The analogy gets me abstracting features of the original problem and helps me see what parts of my reaction were attached to my framing of the original scenario.
What doesn't work so well is analogizing to things that are more emotionally intense. It comes from wanting your words to match the intensity of your emotions when the real thing is really not that bad.
It's not an analogy. There's a very serious risk that Youtube's policy will be used to prohibit honest, good faith disagreement of the kind discussed in the original article. (Medium's similar policy already has been!)
That's happening on YouTube now.