Paper short abstract:

This contribution investigates negotiations of health expertise and authority in the context of social media and the various actors invested, by exploring the controversy surrounding the admission of German YouTube channel “Liebscher & Bracht” into the designated “Health”-program of the platform.

Paper long abstract:

This contribution investigates negotiations of health expertise and authority in the context of social media and the various actors invested in them, by exploring the public controversy surrounding the admission of German YouTube channel “Liebscher & Bracht” into the designated "Health"-program of the platform.

According to YouTube, its “Health”-program was launched in an effort to counteract misinformation and improve users access to “health-related” contents from reliable resources. Channels deemed “authoritative health sources” can recaive a visible seal and preferential algorithmic treatment on the site. Adherence to a set of standards defined by the National Academy of Medicine in the US and ratified by the World Health Organization („science-based“, „objective“, „transparent and accountable“) was determined as decisive for this. However, when “Liebscher & Bracht” as Germanys largest “health-related” channel was admitted, legacy media outlets highlighted its medically unsound advice and exaggerated therapeutic promises. This raises concerns over YouTube’s commitment to its self-set standards, especially since watchdog organizations as well as other content creators on the platform have long warned against “Liebscher & Bracht” for their unsubstantiated claims.

This article examines the constructions and contestations of expertise and authority that the many actors involved in the issue participate in, using an integrated mix of interpretative and digital methods. Furthermore, it also takes the perspective of the audience into account by analyzing and mapping discussions in the comment sections of YouTube videos and news articles, where often very positive personal experiences with “Liebscher & Bracht’s” content are weighted against the presented critique.