> I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter factual during the emergency.
That's precisely the problem though. The rule at Youtube is any content that goes against CDC/WHO guidelines is considered "misinformation". So to your point:
> If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else.
Yeah unless that doctor comes to the exact same conclusion as the CDC, and parrots the exact same info, that doctor is spreading misinformation according to Youtube. I've even seen instances where the CDC would say something, Youtuber would cover it, the next week the CDC reverses that policy and Youtube will hit the Youtuber for "misinformation".
The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science.
If someone went on YouTube to articulate the current scientific consensus of Ivermectin, which is that "There is no evidence to support it as a therapy for COVID, but that there are currently studies in progress which could yield important information, and in the meantime, people should definitely not be taking it as it can be dangerous unless administered by Health professionals" - I'm doubtful such a video would be taken down.
Anyone talking about COVID 'cures' in public forums for which there is no scientific consensus, during a pandemic, should definitely come under heavy scrutiny.
You're having difficulty with reading comprehension it seems, as that is not the manner in which I applied the term 'consistent'.
WHO and CDC act in generally accordance with what we know i.e. 'consistent with the science'.
The science itself is of course fuzzy, moreover, your example ignores the fact that in different conditions (i.e. cultures, relative access to healthcare, % vaccinated), public policy is going to be different even if the science itself were clear.
So in varying conditions, it's reasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementations. Those implementations are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another.
This is not hard to understand, so it begs the question, what kind of person would make the conclusion:
"Different places have different public health policies, therefore these groups must be acting unscientifically"
We generally know what's going on, and have a good idea of what we don't know - so most of this inanity boils down to psychology, self awareness, antagonism, magical thinking etc.. The answer to our problems lies more in understanding why people believe 'QAnon' conspiracy theories than it does anything else.
> So in varying conditions, it's not unreasonable that there's going to be varying policy implementation which are not 'inconsistent' with the science, even if they are 'inconsistent' with one another.
Sure, but what we're discussing here is YouTube's single global standard that is being used to determine whether or not something is "misinformation" and should be prohibited on their platform.
You argued that what YouTube is doing is good, because they're following CDC and WHO guidelines. I gave you one example of where the WHO and the CDC and the ECDC are completely at odds with each other, so what should YouTube do in that case? Which science should they follow?
If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to force small children to wear masks, pointing out all the ways it is harmful for them, and talking about how little is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by most European viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the ECDC.
If I make a video on YouTube, talking about what a barbaric practice it is to re-open schools without mask mandates, pointing out the risk to teachers and staff, and talking about how much is gained from it, it would be seen as completely normal by many American viewers, because it is in line with public health recommendations from the CDC.
Which video should be removed by YouTube for medical misinformation? The first? The second? Both? None? Or should YouTube apply different standards depending on your geolocation?
> Aren’t these the organizations that lied to the public in March 2020, saying masks were not effective?
A simpler explanation, that is consistent with data, is that community masking was never very effective, and that the current mask guidelines are 100% about politics and signaling.
The notion that 7 Billion people in the world are living under a 'Mask Policy' which have no material value, but exists only for the purposes of 'signalling' is conspiratorial nonsense.
At the start of the pandemic, the efficacy of masks in the commons was still debatable, more so than is now.
Public Health Policy issues around getting 100's of millions of Westerners, not acclimated to wearing masks (as they are in some Asian countries), was a daunting concern, as we can see with all the anti-mask idiots even to this day.
N95s in particular were acutely necessary in Healthcare settings and the supply chains from China towards the start of the pandemic in the US were not quite ramped-up, and were just becoming secure by the time the CDC switched to a pro-mask footing. Otherwise, any call by the CDC for 350M Americans to 'wear masks' would have likely overran the Healthcare supply chain.
As the availability of PPE to Healthcare became secure, as Asian health officials urged Westerners to adopt mask policies, as we understand a bit more about masks, the policy shifted towards mask wearing.
Obviously, masks are a marginal tactic in the fight against COVID, but there is a systematic benefit, especially over 350M people million people, wearing them when they are interacting wit others. If there is ambiguity in their efficacy, it's rational to err on the side of caution, not the other way. Because we are 'going with the policy' then it has to be supported and enforced, like anything else.
They didn't lie, they stated a policy valid for one context.
When the context shifted, they changed policy.
Public Health Policy is based on Science, but it's not the same as Science.
It's a strategy, a general policy and set of communication principles, based on facts, designed to get a large variety of people moving towards better health outcomes.
Some of those facts are not pretty, much of it is too complicated for public consumption, and necessarily not going to be directly part of the communication.
Obviously, in the interest of transparency, those facts and other bits of information (such as study results) are definitely publicly available to anyone who can Google - but what you're going to hear from Fauci, CNN, the 'papers of record' is the basis of a Public Policy.
If everyone acted conscientiously, in accordance with CDC guidelines, even while remaining vigilant to the extent they choose (i.e. verifying information as they so chose), this pandemic might very well have been already over.
That's precisely the problem though. The rule at Youtube is any content that goes against CDC/WHO guidelines is considered "misinformation". So to your point:
> If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else.
Yeah unless that doctor comes to the exact same conclusion as the CDC, and parrots the exact same info, that doctor is spreading misinformation according to Youtube. I've even seen instances where the CDC would say something, Youtuber would cover it, the next week the CDC reverses that policy and Youtube will hit the Youtuber for "misinformation".