This post entirely misunderstands YouTube's position in the whole situation though. YouTube removes content advertising the use of drugs outside of their (at least, at the time of posting the video) prescribed usage. YouTube is not meant to be a message board for "Does ___ work for ____ illness? Let's see!".
You're spot on. But beyond that, the idea that there's any kind of general public enlightenment to be had by spreading the most impactful (not necessarily accurate) videos by algorithmic selection in the face of considerable uncertainty and risk is absurd.
The youtube algorithm and social platform is not some kind of careful dialog for mutual enlightenment. People aren't trying to rationally assess conflicting and limited evidence, and youtubes algorithm certainly doesn't reward any such painstaking work.
As such on youtube which is what this is about, any such discussion is not at all likely to inform; yet because convincing tales sell better, whatever claims are made, are likely to sound convincing to at least some people - truth and honesty are entirely orthogonal issues here, or worse actively selected against (because they're usually messy, unclear, and thus boring).
And thus on youtube the appropriate strategy is at a bare minimum draconian censorship. I mean, ideally they'd dump the sensationalism-boosting algorithm, but that ideal is obviously not a viable request to a platform that depends on user engagement (of any kind) for its survival.
Just because we don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare doesn't mean all speech is necessarily a value-add, nor that there aren't any social dynamics that can reliably induce harmful speech. The world isn't that simple.
So while it's reasonable for people to seek certainty in uncertain times, that doesn't mean youtube is the place for everybody to debate ideal drug regimens.
Not sure if I got this correctly. The argument is that no rational conversation of public interest can be hosted by youtube, in order to protect the public from the sensationalistic garbage youtube cynically promotes? And the solution is to let the machine rampage freely, but drastically censor certain points of view?
Worse, youtube outcompetes traditional mass-media for ad dollars by exploiting precisely the sensationalism engine. The net result is an uninformed population fed sensationalism on all cylinders, with rampant censorship decided by a tiny clique. I have some doubts whether this is a recipe for a stable prosperous society.
Edit. Of course the bulk of the conversation should happen on technical grounds in the medical media in relative obscurity. But given the high profile of the covid pandemic, should a therapeutic drug with a stack of studies backing claims of positive impact, be discussed in mass-media?
