>There's a mile-wide chasm between posting an opinion that differs from the official government line and posting something that's deliberate misinformation designed to harm people.
This is true, but almost no content would fall under your definition of "deliberate misinformation designed to harm people". That phrasing might be said to be the standard, but it wouldn't be applied that way.
Also, the quote from the YouTube spokesperson pretty explicitly says that if something is wrong with the vaccine YouTube will not allow you to say that. That would be something specific, rather than broad. I doubt that they would actually silence someone that points a specific flaw in the vaccine, but that's what their spokesperson said (read: their words are unreliable).
This is true, but almost no content would fall under your definition of "deliberate misinformation designed to harm people". That phrasing might be said to be the standard, but it wouldn't be applied that way.
Also, the quote from the YouTube spokesperson pretty explicitly says that if something is wrong with the vaccine YouTube will not allow you to say that. That would be something specific, rather than broad. I doubt that they would actually silence someone that points a specific flaw in the vaccine, but that's what their spokesperson said (read: their words are unreliable).