YouTube's Late Response to US Election Misinformation

While Twitter and Facebook were actively developing new guidelines for the 2020 election, YouTube remained largely silent. The platform did not issue any significant announcements regarding a crackdown on misinformation related to the election, nor did it fully address its substantial role in the dissemination of information during a period widely considered to be highly unstable for American democracy.

Although former Vice President Joe Biden was declared the winner of the presidential election on November 7th, YouTube chose to postpone the enforcement of its policies against election misinformation until the “safe harbor” deadline – the point at which state-level audits and recounts are finalized.

A recent blog post published on Wednesday offered an explanation from YouTube – to a degree:

YouTube stated that its users were permitted to share misinformation concerning an election still in progress, but content asserting that “widespread fraud or errors” affected the outcome of a past election would be prohibited. From YouTube’s viewpoint, which allowed the Trump administration’s numerous unsubstantiated challenges to the results to continue, the election was only resolved recently.

The period spanning November 3rd to November 7th was a time of considerable uncertainty, marked by unsubstantiated claims of victory from President Trump and his allies, and anxieties about potential political unrest as online misinformation, already a significant issue, intensified. Instead of engaging with these issues as Twitter and even the often-hesitant Facebook did, YouTube largely chose to observe and await the natural progression of events. The company felt more secure directing users to reliable information sources than making difficult decisions and proactively removing false claims from its platform.

YouTube currently does not prioritize providing detailed explanations or making real-time platform policy decisions with complete transparency. Twitter has been a leader in this approach, and while its decisions are not always straightforward, its transparency and open communication are commendable. While Twitter may not always reach the correct conclusion, YouTube doesn’t even attempt to address the evolving challenges presented by online misinformation.

YouTube’s lack of transparency in its decision-making is further complicated by the inherent difficulty in monitoring online video content, which is considerably harder for journalists to search and catalog compared to text-based platforms. Consequently, YouTube has generally faced less scrutiny relative to its prominence within the social media landscape. It is unusual to see Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee without any consideration given to including YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki. Despite its considerable influence and two billion users, the social video giant remains largely unnoticed by legislators.

If YouTube’s strategy is based on the belief that reduced communication will attract less attention, it appears to be succeeding. The company is likely concerned about becoming involved in federal and state-level antitrust investigations, especially given state lawsuits that aim to separate Facebook and Instagram.

The Justice Department has already initiated a significant antitrust lawsuit against Google focusing on its search operations, but this does not rule out further antitrust actions targeting YouTube. Maintaining a low profile may have been effective during the four years of the Trump administration, but President-elect Biden is more focused on protecting the public from misinformation than allowing it to proliferate.