Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 16:24:
Eirikrautha wrote on Dec 14, 2020, 15:15:
So many people are firmly behind corporate censorship ("It's not censorship unless it's the government, man..."), never dreaming that their own opinions and speech will be the next to go. Like Robespierre to the guillotine, they are shocked that the monster they created has turned on them.
I understand that you have a grievance with the content moderation policies of private entities whom you interact with. How exactly should that grievance be resolved without introducing greater state burdens on the behavior and speech of private entities and individuals? If the state can compel private entity A to broadcast controversial claim B, what prevents the state from compelling private entity C to censor controversial claim D? If you believe that private entities should be compelled to broadcast all ideas, and censor none, what is to prevent you yourself from being compelled to speak a specific idea?
Any platform that is widely used and which people rely on for their living—YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc—should be free to moderate content. However, there needs to be transparency regarding editorial decisions and there needs to be independent arbitration for disputes. No-one is advocating that governments decide what content is and isn't acceptable but they have a duty to ensure that markets are operating in a fair manner.
In this particular case, a content producer had their video silently censored without notification or justification and that has a serious impact on their ability to earn a living. And it's not like YouTube has any legitimate competitors, meaning the market isn't functioning properly.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."