Why "mostly"? I think it's a net good, in that it will reduce the spread of this disinformation. But at an individual level, it might have a type of backfire effect, where people already convinced of a slew of conspiracy theories will see this as evidence of a cover-up of those conspiracy theories and hence become even more convinced.
There are also some ethical and slippery-slope concerns. Who decides what is "borderline"? Sure, most people agree that Flat-Earth is just nonsense, but fewer people agree chemtrails are nonsense, and quite a significant percentage of people actually believe "blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11." What about when we get into political debunking? Does YouTube get to suppress videos that make borderline political claims that 30% of the people in the county think are true? Probably not (yet), but the line is fuzzy.
Still, I think the reduction in exposure to the more obviously wrong conspiracy theories is a good development. There's a chunk of the population who are vulnerable to them, and if they get sucked into the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, it makes it very easy to sway them to make life and voting decisions based on misinformation. Stopping people from becoming flat-earthers isn't automatically going to make them happy and productive members of society, but it's a solid step in the right direction.
Last edited:
I personally doubt that. Things like Sandy Hook Hoax or drinking bleach to cure cancer hurts their brand and probably ad revenue. If they wanted to make the world a better place they would have done it without a thousand people from Las Vegas, Sh parents, etc freaking out on their company.