The devil is always in the details. What does “denial of X” even mean? Can you dispute certain facts, like numbers and dates? Who gets to decide the ultimate truth?
It takes a long time for the details of history to settle. For example, nobody knew most dinosaurs had feathers until the last decade.
So would you support banning everyone on YouTube who went against WHO’s tweet[1] saying there’s no evidence of human to human transmission? That was only in January.
First of all, this is about “YouTube banning 'medically unsubstantiated' content.” as well as content that “would go against World Health Organization recommendations,” which (if those guidelines are followed) doesn’t mean banning of people or discourse, but rather disinformation. Secondly, the WHO tweeted that, but had actually already acknowledged human-to-human transmission multiple times[1][2] in the days before the tweet, so no, I wouldn’t support banning discussion around a tweet.
I agree. That being said, I think getting more definition and transparency around all this on YouTube/Google's part is going to be really important, though I don't expect it, sadly. There's a fair amount of flimflam being pushed on YouTube right now--everything from literally ingesting chlorine dioxide, to other "holistic" cures that _appear_ to be benign.
It takes a long time for the details of history to settle. For example, nobody knew most dinosaurs had feathers until the last decade.