That's not to say there isn't outright incorrect fake news, but in hindsight some guidelines will always seem more correct than others.
Exactly, which is why declaring that any one entity is the unquestionable source of truth not only shreds the concept of freedom of expression but may be actively harmful.
The recent change to CDC guidelines for the general public to wear face masks is an example of reaction to new research.
Was it actually in response to new research? (Not a rhetorical question). My impression is that they had to change their policy because their "noble lie" of "masks don't work, also we have to save them for healthcare workers" was increasingly recognized as utter nonsense. Which might not have happened if anyone who advocated masks had been summarily deplatformed.
"In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission." [1]
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
Telling people to not fly across the world is bannable misinormation acording to Wojcicki's definition. Of course, it wouldn't be banned, because the actual rule is a much more subjective "whatever makes YT look bad to advertisers and PR"
http://www.flanderstoday.eu/politics/white-house-praises-bru...
Fine, things like this "happen". That is, incredibly cowardly and dishonest persons can play roles in otherwise not completely cowardly and dishonest organizations. However, where is the criticism? Does this guy still have a job at the WHO, what would you guess?
People who look the other way with something like this have nothing to tell me, ever, just like someone who murders people doesn't get to tell me to not use swear words.
Anyone who claims to be concerned about outcome and public safety, and wants to cooperation of people who pay attention and are not blackmailable -- I dare say, the kind of people whose support you want, not the "majority", but the ones with principles and determination, who will stick with things as long as the things demand it, not as long as they are cozy -- should get the WHO as far away from this as soon as possible. That shouldn't even need saying, but now that it's been said a lot, failure to even acknowledge the issue simply means some people do not care about outcome, they care about agenda and the prepared networks to push it, and others just blindly fall in line.