Source: WHO's automatic message that would appear on YouTube in light of the COVID controversies.
Blog Post #10: YouTube and the Danger of COVID Misinformation
By Madeline Feehan
We all know misinformation is dangerous, but what if it could cost you your life? Let's talk about misinformation during COVID times and how it affected the nation's most vulnerable populations: old people and the immunocompromised- two groups who are the most at risk yet the most desperate for a cure and to stay safe, at the cost that they'll believe anything...
One of the greatest sources of misinformation during this time was YouTube. Mainly because the site is designed to be a place of entertainment rather than a hub of information, and because there were no regulated labels differentiating when something was approved by the CDC and WHO, and not.
According to a study by the National Library of Medicine, YouTube was proven to be an unreliable source during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because when you search key terms like "COVID-19 vaccines," there's no guarantee the searches will be the most accurate sources; instead, they are the most popular or well-liked sources. This study showed that 11% of the most viewed videos on COVID-19 contradicted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the WHO. They theorized that this was the case because a video's popularity on YouTube is determined by the public. Rather than being a database that prioritizes peer review and academic accuracy, YouTube is a digitized popularity contest. The videos with the most views are shot to the top. The public is also picky, and views YouTube as a platform for entertainment, so reputable sources might not be as glamorous or enticing. The researchers found that government sources had triple the ratio of dislikes to likes, while entertainment-based and questionably accurate sources had 14 times the ratio of likes to dislikes. These statistics show that YouTube is not an ideal source to be getting important health information.
However, this begs the question: Should YouTube do a better job of policing information? Should the popular videos still be at the top of the search, but with a disclaimer that they're not verified by the CDC and WHO? Should the government-made videos have a certification in contrast? Should YouTube be held accountable if people follow uncertified medical advice and face consequences, or should social media platforms be given some credit, and should the consequences fall on the person's poor judgment?
Out of curiosity, I looked to see if YouTube updated its policy in light of the controversies. I took a look at their medical misinformation policy, which was updated in 2025. The gist is that YouTube does not allow any intentional misinformation that contradicts or encourages people to go against health guidelines, anything that promotes harmful substances to be used as an alternative to health guideline-approved methods (like unapproved medication as opposed to vaccines). To sum it up, any misinformation related to treatment and prevention is not allowed.
However, some instances that could fall under the misinformation are allowed. These are videos where it's clear that the information is not pretending to be accurate; the posters make it clear that this is their own opinion or they're introducing a counterargument rather than purposefully misleading people for their own gain. Examples of this can be people talking about a specific research study, discussing a protest or public hearing, or giving their own personal experience. For example, a non-CDC-approved company that's advertising a product as a cure and is presenting itself as approved health information would violate YouTube's rules, but a person making a video saying they don't agree with getting vaccines would not be violating the policy.
Any video that is technically misinformation has to include additional context in the title, video, audio, or description, such as "this is an opinion, not a medical fact." There is a difference between promoting misinformation and sharing personal experiences, and YouTube continuously monitors accounts that straddle this line.
Overall, YouTube's current policy is very reasonable. It prevents the spread of misinformation while still allowing for user autonomy. It does a good job of balancing what's best for users and what's best for the interests of public health, and I think these labels can save lives. However, the only thing that has me concerned is what their policy was like before. Were these things not a given? How many people got away without promoting misinformation that seriously harmed people? It makes me even more certain that social media platforms must carefully craft policies just as they're getting started because a perfect policy created years later might be too little too late if the damage is already done. Still, better late than never!
Thank you for this eye-opening post! Indeed the misinformation out there on Covid-19 is rampant. I appreciate that YouTube has a medical misinformation policy, but how are they keeping up? Do their bots scan for information? I feel it is the viewer's responsibility to be aware of the information sources. So many people are gullible and lack the ability to evaluate whether or not information is valid. Time to go to grad school, I say! And learn, learn, learn!
ReplyDeleteIt's always those who said "don't believe everything you see on the internet" when I was a child that now share obviously AI content that they believe to be real! While health information is a topic that can have major consequences on human lives, general misinformation is literally all over the internet, and I guess the big question is just how far can policies go to keep people from accessing wrong information? It makes sense that opinions are allowed, but how clear do I need to make that fact? Do I need to state "this is just my opinion" multiple times, or can it be a quick disclaimer hidden in the description? Can this policy be extended to other topics, like hate speech, bogus products, or false accusations? So many possibilities, but is it all possible?
ReplyDelete