Further to points already raised, Matt Taibbi interviews Bret Weinstein:
– “Consider this bizarre fact. In Sept. 2020, Politifact “fact checked” the lab leak hypothesis and declared it a “pants on fire lie.” Politifact was forced to walk that conclusion back in May 2021. My flow chart had a lab leak at almost 90% as of April 2020. In June of 2021 Politifact “fact checked” the assertion (made on the DarkHorse Podcast by Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology) that “spike protein is cytotoxic.” They declared it false. How did they end up the arbiter of factual authority in this case? Shouldn’t the presumption be with Dr. Malone, and with DarkHorse?”
But again, this is about moderation policy on large social media websites – the question isn’t whether Weinstein or anyone else should be “censored” by YouTube; Weinstein has his own website which YouTube cannot censor.
The point is that YouTube makes money for (and from) Weinstein via advertising, but may stop doing so. Ceasing to derive income from media one produces is not the same as censorship. YouTube are not equipped to check Weinstein’s advice; in fact no one is, because the matters under discussion are not well understood yet. However, YouTube are making money by promoting Weinstein’s media, and if that media contains advice that turns out to be lethal, YouTube could rightly get sued for promoting it. YouTube doesn’t promote Weinstein out of altruism. YouTube is corporate media; its intended purpose is to make money by selling audiences to advertisers.