Google lets channels blocked due to Covid-19 and US elections back to YouTube
Content creators banned for the coronavirus are allowed to post videos on YouTube again due to misinformation. Meanwhile, Google warns of possible EU censorship.
(Image: metamorworks/Shutterstock.com)
YouTube is allowing video creators who were previously banned for spreading false or misleading information, for example about US elections or the coronavirus, back onto the platform. At the same time, YouTube accuses the previous US administration under Joe Biden of restricting political freedom of expression by putting pressure on online platforms. A similar situation is now emerging in the EU. The Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) could jeopardize freedom of expression.
This is what the lawyer for Google parent company Alphabet wrote in a letter to the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, the legislative committee of the United States House of Representatives. It is a response to subpoenas from this committee after the data company had been investigated for compliance with the law and civil rights in recent years.
During the coronavirus pandemic, YouTube deleted more than one million videos with false information about COVID-19 – within about a year and a half. YouTube also took action against fake news about the US elections at the end of 2020, the result of which the then-losing incumbent Donald Trump had disputed and still disputes. Several Trump supporters then spread conspiracy theories on YouTube, which led to their channels being banned from YouTube. They then expressed their opinions on other online platforms and found a larger audience there.
YouTube opens up again
Now YouTube is relenting. “YouTube values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes that these creators have a wide reach and play an important role in social discourse,” reads the lawyer's letter. “The company recognizes that these creators are among those shaping today's online consumption by providing must-see interviews and allowing viewers to hear directly from politicians, celebrities, business leaders, and others.”
Videos by heise
In addition, regulations and opinions regarding the coronavirus have changed. “As an expression of the company's commitment to freedom of expression, YouTube will allow all YouTubers to rejoin the platform if the company has shut down their channels due to repeated violations of its COVID-19 and US election integrity policies, which are no longer in effect,” the statement continues.
Pressure from the Biden administration
The company is indirectly blaming the Biden administration for the YouTube bans. The platform would act independently, according to its guidelines. However, members of the government at the time had repeatedly put pressure on Alphabet because of user-generated content about COVID-19 that did not violate YouTube guidelines and would not cause any damage. The fact that the Biden administration wanted to dictate to online platforms how content should be moderated is now described by Alphabet as “unacceptable” and “wrong,” according to the lawyer.
According to the lawyer, YouTube, unlike other large platforms, has not employed independent fact-checkers to monitor user content and will continue to do so. Instead, the video platform in the USA has started to allow users to add context, similar to the Community Notes feature on X. However, this function is currently still being tested and further developed. However, fact-checkers are common in other parts of the company. In 2020, Google funded fact-checkers on COVID-19 with millions.
Warning of censorship through EU laws
That year, YouTube also brought a fact-checking function to Germany to prevent the spread of misinformation. However, the company now feels threatened by DSA and DMA in the EU. These laws could “inhibit innovation and restrict access to information.” Depending on how it is applied, the Digital Services Act could threaten freedom of expression. This is because the DSA could be interpreted in such a way that Alphabet and other service providers would have to monitor expressions of opinion and remove content that complies with the law. Here, however, the lawyer remains vague, but it can be understood as a warning.
(fds)