Speaker 1: All right, we're going to start today with what many of you e-mailed me about
with very different opinions, this is the news that YouTube has now officially banned
all anti vaccine content and even some sort of perennial anti vaccine content creators.
And some of you emailing me saying this is absolutely horrifying, even though I'm pro
vaccine.
Many of you said allowing YouTube to be the arbiter, arbiter of what counts as an anti
vaccine or not is very problematic.
Others wrote to me and said, David, is is this really a big deal or not?
And the answer is that this is a major content decision.
But what's being missed by many of the articles and many of the people e-mailing me is that
it's not much of a change to YouTube's content policy around anti vaccine content.
This this has been 90 percent of the policy for the last many, many months anyway.
And this actually represents a pretty minor change.
So let's look at some of the reporting on this.
Reuters writing YouTube blocks all anti vaccine content.
YouTube will block all anti vaccine content moving beyond its ban on false information
about the covid vaccines to include content that contains misinformation about other approved
vaccines, it said in a blog post on Wednesday.
Examples of content that won't be allowed on YouTube include claims that the flu vaccine
causes infertility and that the MMR shot the measles, mumps, rubella shot can cause autism.
The online video company owned by Alphabet Google is also banning channels associated
with several prominent anti vaccine activists, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Joseph
Mercola, a YouTube spokesperson said.
The move comes as YouTube and tech giants like Facebook and Twitter have been criticized
for not doing enough to stop the spread of false information.
But even as YouTube takes a tougher stance, it faces backlash around the world.
Russian state backed broadcaster Arties German language channels were deleted from YouTube
as the company said the channels breached its covert misinformation policy.
Russia called the move unprecedented information aggression and threatened to block YouTube.
Now I have to tell you guys, this is barely a change in policy from what's been the case
for a long time.
And there's also some confusion about banning content versus monetizing content.
Let's look at one more article and then we're going to get into those details.
NBC article says YouTube cracks down on anti vaccine videos, bans major accounts.
YouTube announced a total ban Wednesday on vaccine misinformation and the termination
of accounts of several prominent anti vaccine influencers.
I already named them Joseph Mercola.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr..
The new policy was crafted as the company began to see false claims about covid-19 vaccines
spill over into misinformation about vaccines.
In general, YouTube already had a policy against covid vaccine misinformation.
But the new ban against broader vaccine misinformation includes content that falsely claims approved
vaccines are dangerous or ineffective, including the false belief that vaccines cause autism
or cancer.
So the most important line in all of these articles is that this policy already existed
with relation to covid vaccines.
This is only a tweak in that.
Now, more general anti vaccine stuff will also be banned, 99 percent of the, quote,
problematic content.
Over the last eight, nine months since the covid vaccines have been out has been related
specifically to covid vaccines.
And that has already been banned.
Whether it's enforced and policed in every case on such a large platform is a different
question.
But what most people are reacting to is reacting as if this is about covid vaccine stuff, specifically
the covid vaccine.
Disinformation has already been banned.
This is now expanding it like two percent to say in general, covid vaccine misinformation
not covered by vaccine misinformation is now going to be banned as well.
Also, the vast majority of YouTube content is allowed, but some of it is not monetized.
And that's another aspect of this that many people are being confused by.
There's a whole bunch of stuff.
That is what we would call edgy for for lack of a better term, which is allowed on YouTube.
The vast majority of content is allowed on YouTube, but you can't monetize all of it.
And that applies to me as well.
There's stuff that's too edgy that I cover related to war or conflicts, terrorism.
That's not monitor.
Sizable, but it's allowed and the vast majority of even kind of like edgy content is allowed,
but not necessarily monetize.
So I have to tell you, I think this is mostly much ado about nothing.
I think Facebook is a lot more to blame for this stuff than YouTube.
But YouTube actually has been cracking down on conspiracy misinformation for a while now,
maybe not as much as they should have been.
If there's a criticism, it's they haven't done enough.
They've gone out of their way to provide official information about coronavirus vaccines, et
cetera.
When the algorithm detects that, that's the subject matter.
Was it enough?
No, but I'm seeing way more problematic stuff spread and be signal boosted on Facebook,
where it's really generating even more denialism and perpetuating disinformation.
And one of the things I've been thinking about a lot lately, and I know this is a big statement
at this point, I think Facebook is is probably a net negative, probably a net negative.
I think YouTube is still a net positive.
OK, there's so much amazing instructional and documentary content, cooking, gardening,
so, so many things on on YouTube that are just fantastic.
And there are problems with misinformation spreading on YouTube as well.
I'm just not sure that Facebook is at all a net positive.
We still publish to Facebook because I think Facebook exists and I'd rather Facebook have
our content than not have it.
But that's a real question for me at this point in time.
If that topic is interesting, by the way, I highly recommend the book Tech Nappily by
the Critic Neil Postman.
I'm almost done reading it.
He's way more straight up like anti technology than I am.
But the book, which is actually from the 90s, perfectly predicts the conundrum we're in
with social media platforms right now and the downsides of tech.
And it's very much a worthwhile read now as far as the decision by YouTube.
Either way, the conspiracy theorists, we're going to say YouTube is against them.
They banned the content.
The anti Voxer say YouTube is participating in the suppression, but they'd say it either
way.
And so I think that this is definitely the right decision.
Is there some concern about who gets to decide what counts as an tiebacks?
Sure.
Yeah, any time, you know, being the gatekeeper brings with it its own set of questions and
problems, that's always a problem.
It's not new here.
And you don't say that these companies can't enforce terms of service and terms and conditions
as a result.
And unfortunately, that's that's the claim that many
are making.