On June 18, psychologist and political commentator Jordan Peterson and 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tweeted that YouTube removed an hour-and-a-half long conversation between them from Petersons channel.
Offering no explanation at the time of the takedown, a YouTube spokesperson claimed the next day the platform removed the video because it violated YouTubes vaccine misinformation policy. The source told CNN that YouTube does not allow content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities.
As a private company, YouTube is allowed to do this. Rightfully, those who manage the platform have no legal obligation to allow any particular content to remain there. And notably, YouTube doesnt even pay lip service to free speech in its policy commitments.
However, the conversation shouldnt end there. Just because censorial action is lawful doesnt necessarily mean its productive for public discourse. YouTube itself claims to have a responsibility to support an informed citizenry and foster healthy political discourse. But the way it conceives of carrying out this responsibility leaves a lot to be desired.
A subsection of the platforms Supporting Political Integrity webpage states:
[W]e remove policy-violative content, raise authoritative news sources, reduce the spread of election-related misinformation, and provide a range of resources for civics partners such as government officials, candidates, civics organizations, and political Creators to ensure a broad range of voices are heard.
But can supporting an informed citizenry, fostering healthy political discourse, and ensuring a broad range of voices are heard be squared with disallowing any perspective that differs from that of health authorities?
A healthy political discourse, as YouTube acknowledges, means ensuring a broad range of voices are heard. If a political candidate generating the support of more than 15% of Democrats, with a higher favorability rating than either major partys presumptive nominee, falls outside the acceptable range of voices that can be heard, YouTubes conception of broad seems conspicuously narrow.
Especially given that Kennedy is a major public figure, the public would be well served to have the opportunity to confront his claims concerning vaccines and other subjects. Thiscontributes to fostering an informed citizenry.
But YouTube doesnt give audiences that chance. Instead, it infantilizes viewers, treating them as if theyre incapable of hearing a given perspective without instantly onboarding it.
Fortunately, YouTube is not the sole arbiter of media content. Anyone interested may still watch the interview on Twitter or listen to it on podcast platforms. And, apparently, many are interested: Petersons and Kennedys tweets linking to the video have each garnered 4.2 million views and 4.6 million views, respectively.
This casts doubt on whether YouTubes decision to remove the interview is even strategically effective if it truly hopes to dissuade people from encountering harmful views.
Instead of playing content cop, YouTube should give its viewerbase the chance to heed the platforms own advice.
Kennedys detractors often describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and YouTubes policy states that it aims to combat harmful conspiracy theories. If this goal contributed to the platform removing the video, the action was particularly ill-conceived. Conspiracy theories often rest on notions of the existence of cabals of well-connected conspirators, wielding institutional power to stop average people from recognizing the truth. YouTube should critically consider whether a person prone to conspiratorial thinking would be more or less likely to believe a given theory after witnessing a powerful corporation censor someone who expresses it.
In less extreme terms, viewpoint-based censorship necessarily places a thumb on the scale for some viewpoints and against others. Even if its removed, we shouldnt be surprised if the weight swings back in the direction of the speech that was suppressed. And we shouldnt underestimate the power of the Streisand effect, peoples reactive desire to seek out information theyre not supposed to see.
FIRE is disturbed by calls for government action to force or pressure social media companies to censor.
Read More
So, where does that leave us? How can we reliably identify misleading and deceptive information so as not to place our trust in it?
Ironically, some of the answers YouTube itself provides on its Media Literacy page arent half bad:
[W]e encourage you to ask yourself some questions before you believe everything you see online, says YouTuber Coyote Peterson in a clip representing the platform. Like, Why was this video made?, and, Who made it?, And How do I know the information is true? Where else can I check to make sure its right?
Remember, he says, you can always play detective and check more than one source.
Instead of playing content cop, YouTube should give its viewerbase the chance to heed the platforms own advice. Otherwise, its setting the precedent that it, not they, knows best whats true and whats false, whats harmful and whats helpful undermining its own assertion that we each should take it upon ourselves to examine media with a critical eye.
Read more here:
YouTube can remove Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr. interview, but should it? - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education