[bleepblorp]

Why do you believe the right of bad-faith actors to load disinformation into the minds of the gullible is more important than the right of uninvolved third parties to live?

It's one thing to spread disinformation that leads people to harm themselves (for example, by encouraging them to drink laundry detergent or bleach). It's quite another to spread disinformation that harms third parties. Third parties have no say in what disinformation the gullible choose to consume but they will be subject to the consequences of the gullible believing what they've been told.

Every polity that has something resembling a right to freedom of speech imposes limits on that speech when it can harm others. Libel, slander, and incitement are not generally tolerated. Restricting the spread of disinformation that increases the impact of a deadly pandemic is no different.

I do agree, however, that the final arbiter of what speech is acceptable should not rest with Youtube or any other private entity. This is a question for elected governments and the judiciary.

[DarknessFalls]

What if disinformation leads to the gullible placing "bad-faith actors" in our elected governments and judiciary? Just imagine!

We must hedge our bets and let disinformation be cut down wherever rational minds exist (for now).

[cannedslime]

And you don't think Libel and slander laws are sufficient? If someone says something obviously untruthful we already have the legal framework to deal with it.

This is just a private company taking control of information. Who is to say that they arent the ones spreading misinformation themselves?