• YouTube CEO Neal Mohan defended the platform’s COVID-era censorship while claiming commitment to “free expression,” revealing Big Tech’s pattern of silencing dissent under the guise of safety.
• Mohan avoided acknowledging past mistakes, refusing to restore wrongfully removed content (e.g., videos challenging COVID narratives, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s), despite admitting most moderation policies were later scrapped.
• Suppressing debates on lockdowns, masks and vaccines fueled public distrust—evidenced by lower U.S. vaccine acceptance—yet Mohan dismissed backlash, citing evolving “context” and “science.”
• YouTube’s claim of neutrality clashes with its history of favoring left-leaning voices, demonetizing conservatives and excluding networks like Great American Media under vague “business” justifications.
• The interview signals that unchecked tech power threatens discourse during future crises (elections, climate, etc.), with Mohan’s evasion proving Silicon Valley won’t self-correct. Solutions require competition, transparency and legal pressure.

In a stunning display of corporate doublespeak, YouTube CEO Neal Mohan recently defended the platform’s heavy-handed COVID-era censorship while simultaneously proclaiming YouTube’s commitment to “free expression.” His remarks, made during an interview on Semafor’s Mixed Signals podcast, reveal a troubling pattern: Big Tech’s willingness to silence dissent under the guise of “safety” while pretending to uphold open discourse. Worse yet, Mohan’s refusal to acknowledge past mistakes—or even consider restoring wrongfully removed content—proves that Silicon Valley’s gatekeepers still believe they, not the public, should decide what constitutes “truth.”

The COVID censorship debacle: A betrayal of public trust

At the height of the pandemic, YouTube aggressively purged videos that challenged official narratives, including those from now-Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. When pressed on whether these takedowns were justified—or whether the platform would reinstate the deleted content—Mohan dodged accountability.

“I can’t speak to the specific videos,” he said, before admitting that YouTube has since “deprecated” most of its COVID-era moderation policies. Translation: The rules used to silence critics were arbitrary and unnecessary, yet Mohan still won’t admit error.

This evasion is particularly galling given the growing evidence that censorship backfired spectacularly. By suppressing legitimate debate—including early skepticism about lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccine efficacy—YouTube and other platforms fueled public distrust. As host Ben Smith pointed out, vaccine acceptance in the U.S. is now lower than before the pandemic. Yet Mohan shrugged off the backlash, claiming:

“Context really mattered… Science and knowledge around what was happening… was being created by the week.”

But “context” didn’t stop YouTube from acting as an enforcer for government-approved messaging. The platform’s actions mirrored historical precedents where authorities—from 17th-century monarchs to 20th-century censors—justified speech suppression as “necessary” during crises. The difference? Unlike kings or dictators, YouTube is a private entity—one that enjoys legal immunity under Section 230 while wielding unprecedented power over public discourse.

Hypocrisy on display: Free speech for some, not for others

Mohan’s most laughable claim? That YouTube is a bastion of free expression:

“YouTube is a place where you can go and share [your ideas] without somebody telling you that you don’t sound the right way… or you’re saying the wrong thing.”

Tell that to the creators whose videos were erased for questioning COVID orthodoxy. Or to Great American Media, a Christian network accusing YouTube TV of discrimination after being excluded from its streaming lineup. Despite the network’s strong subscriber base (100,000+ on YouTube), Mohan dismissed concerns, insisting carriage decisions are purely “business considerations.”

Would YouTube apply the same standard to a progressive media outlet? Given the platform’s history of favoring left-leaning voices—while demonetizing or suppressing conservative content—the answer is obvious.

Why this matters: A warning for the future

Mohan’s interview isn’t just about past mistakes—it’s a warning. If platforms like YouTube can erase dissent during one crisis, they’ll do it again. Already, we’re seeing renewed calls for censorship around elections, climate change and even financial reporting (as with the 2021 GameStop saga).

Historically, governments have exploited emergencies to expand control. Today, Big Tech does the same—with no accountability. Mohan’s refusal to apologize, much less correct past overreach, proves that Silicon Valley’s censors haven’t learned their lesson.

Reclaiming the digital public square

The solution isn’t government regulation—it’s competition. Americans must support alternative platforms that truly embrace free speech, while holding giants like YouTube accountable through transparency demands and legal challenges.

As for Mohan? His words reveal the truth: YouTube’s version of “free expression” is a locked door—with corporate bouncers deciding who gets in.

If you’re tired of censorship, follow NewsTarget.com  and demand better from Big Tech.

Sources include:

ReclaimTheNet.org

Semafor.com

CommunicationsDaily.com