[AnthonyMouse]

> Regardless of if this video should be censored, these guys are awful scientists.

This is the exact reason why it shouldn't be censored. Because if their science is bad then it needs to be available for people who know better to tear it to shreds.

If you take it down then the story can't be "this is why they're wrong" because what they said isn't available anymore, so a rebuttal isn't believable because you can't tell if it's an accurate representation of the original presentation.

So then the story becomes about censorship and you're making it all too easy for motivated people to spin a conspiracy theory about how these scientists are speaking truth to power and getting oppressed, even if they are in actual fact totally wrong.

[shkkmo]

Yet if you look at the comment sections for this video, there isn't anyone tearing it to shreds.

This isn't something I have been able to confidently form an opinion on; it's a hard topic. I think we will be strugging with how to balance bias, deliberate misinformation and freedom of speech for a long time.

But I think at the very least, YouTube needed to put up prominent disclaimers and links to limit the harm that this content can cause.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Yet if you look at the comment sections for this video, there isn't anyone tearing it to shreds.

I count several detailed criticisms of it just in this thread. Do none of them have a YouTube account?

Why don't the people proposing to censor it post their own rebuttal?

> I think at the very least, YouTube needed to put up prominent disclaimers and links to limit the harm that this content can cause.

Which is totally different. Leaving the video up while posting a prominent link to a rebuttal isn't censorship, it's more speech.

[shkkmo]

> I count several detailed criticisms of it just in this thread. Do none of them have a YouTube account?

I did post a rebutal in some of the duplicates I found on YouTube. YouTube comments are not really a great platform for debate and the way their algorithm works tends pull videos like this into an echo chamber that avoids the exact types of critical discussion you are calling for.

So, given the (artificial) choice between leaving the video up as is and taking it down, I suspect that in this particular case, the practically beneficial choice for society (in the short term at least) is to take it down precisely because of how YouTube works as a platform and community.

> Which is totally different. Leaving the video up while posting a prominent link to a rebuttal isn't censorship, it's more speech.

Yes, I am a big fan of free speech. However it has become increasingly clear that simply making speech as free as possible in as many places as possible is not enough (by itself) to solve the problems of misinformation, partisanship and radicalization that we are facing as a society. We can't just dismiss those problems, so as advocates for free speech, we need to find non-censorship ways to help solve those problems.

[AnthonyMouse]

> YouTube comments are not really a great platform for debate and the way their algorithm works tends pull videos like this into an echo chamber that avoids the exact types of critical discussion you are calling for.

This seems like a YouTube-specific problem that should have solutions not involving censorship.