YouTube Throttles Epistemic Knowledge
The YouTube misinformation policy is implicitly arbitrary and plays the second fiddle to many governments during the pandemic. It limits the right to freedom of expression in relation to COVID-19 information, by prohibiting users from posting any information that contradicts expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organisation (WHO). (YouTube, 2022).The policy restricts content that promotes prevention, diagnostic, transmission, and treatment misinformation, as well as the denial of the existence of COVID-19.
While this policy aims to prevent the spread of false information and prevent harmful activities, it may also lead to bias against individuals or groups that hold opinions that are not in line with the views of the local health authorities or WHO.
The policy amounts to a form of censorship, as it imposes a restriction on the type of information that can be shared on the platform. (Mortensen, 2021). Moreover, one can sense how the policy favours information from authorities over other sources, such as alternative medical treatments, religious practices, or natural remedies. (ibid). For instance, the policy prohibits content that promotes home remedies, prayer, or rituals in place of medical treatment, which could be interpreted as discouraging cultural or religious practices that do not align with the views of the authorities.
Furthermore, the policy prohibits any claims that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19, which has been a topic of controversy among health professionals. By doing so, the policy seems to favour the opinion of the authorities, who have expressed concerns about the use of Hydroxychloroquine, over the opinion of medical professionals who support the use of this drug for COVID-19 treatment. (Boulware et al., 2020). This could lead to bias against alternative views and limit the diversity of opinions on the platform.
While the YouTube misinformation policy aims to prevent the spread of false information and harmful activities related to COVID-19, it may also lead to a bias against alternative views and opinions that are not in line with the views of the local health authorities or WHO. This policy could be seen as a form of censorship that limits the right to freedom of expression and diversity of opinions on the platform.
So essentially the policy can be judged as non-epistemic as it restricts people seeking credible information because without compelling justification it is considered as a violation of the right to freedom of expression that underlies many democratic societies. The policy outlined in the YouTube seems to be designed to prevent the spread of misinformation about COVID-19, which is an important goal. However, the policy’s language and implementation could be seen as implicitly biased against certain forms of expression or viewpoints, without necessarily providing clear and compelling reasons for why those forms of expression or viewpoints are harmful or inaccurate.
Khan, (2017) also investigated the drivers to YouTube participation and consumption. This Facebook, unearthed the intention behind YouTube user engagement that has been categorised as active participation and passive consumption, involving conducting a qualitative survey with online users who filled a survey that measured user behaviour and obtained for YouTube participation, relaxing entertainment motive was strongly linked to liking or disliking, social interaction motive strongly predicted commenting and uploading while the motive to give information was associated with sharing of videos. While this study tried to investigate the motives behind different engagement types, they offer very limited information on the emotional aspect of the users.