[flagged]
Can you explain how "Sandy hook was faked and no children were killed" is a political view? Or how "Anthony Bourdain's suicide was faked for monetary gain" is somehow a political opinion?
I only against censoring freedom of speech and creating ideological echo Chambers.
>Here is just a small handful of YouTube channels censored based on their political views:
(emphasis mine)
I'm asking you to justify calling this censorship based on political views, like you claimed. I didn't say anything about your views.
Clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Do not pick sides and change rules on a case by case basis.
Do what you say you are going to do. That's how businesses used to earn trust. Now integrity in business is a thing of the past.
I'd rather have a bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the web than being selectively removed due to a couple's persons opinions on what is right especially when it is not written in stone and enforced sitewide on all accounts.
If you want to say Sandy Hooks is fake, go to your own corner, like 127.0.0.1.
Obviously there are some challenges in the 'like this' part, but it seems like it might scale better and be less prone to centralized censorship problems than the current mechanism.
The sad part is that 'yzmtf2008' will exist inside of a vacuum and will miss out on things that appear crazy and may actually be true, but perhaps the upside is that this person may be more productive in other areas of life by defocusing on distractions.
The big problem is that there is no valid counter argument to conspiracy theorist. That means all conventional means of combating them are useless.
I don't agree that keeping conspiracy theorists off a platform is censorship. It's more akin to removing spam.
Jones himself argued (in his divorce hearing) that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him. I think in that case it is hard to argue it is political speech.
(A): This extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence.
Their response to why they banned Alex Jones, for instance, was that it wasn't because of the content of his views, but that he violated their cyberbullying guidelines multiple times (he received several strikes in the past).
Maybe I'm being naive, but their motivation doesn't appear to be censorship, but to make YouTube a less toxic place than it already is.
freedom of speech does not keep someone from thinking you (not you specifically, but the general you) are an idiot or a kook, nor does it protect you from the consequences of your words by those other individuals (obviously other laws protect you from intentional physical harm and the like). nothing can compel me to listen to you or make a company broadcast your conspiracy theories (again, the general you).
You are confusing laws (like 1st amendment of the US Constitution) with freedom of speech. Laws exist because freedom of speech is important, not the other way around. The fact that laws only restrict the government from suppressing freedom of speech doesn't mean it is not important in other contexts, just because there's no law enforcing it.
> nothing can compel me to listen
Banning someone from the internet (or any part of Internet that is serviced by a major corporation, which is almost all of it) is not the same as "I do not want to listen", it's "I don't like you so nobody gets to listen to you, at least not without extraordinary effort which 99.999% of people are not capable of". If you just don't want to listen to somebody on youtube, it's enough to not go to that channel. Removing the whole channel goes way beyond that and the only purpose of that to silence, not to "not listen" but to cause others not to listen.