>dangerous disinformation
What does this even mean?? Have we forgotten the importance of free speech?
What does this even mean?? Have we forgotten the importance of free speech?
Distribution is very different than freedom of speech, and distribution of their video is allowed on the internet - however the internet is a platform to allow decentralized moderation, so then platforms on top of the internet can moderate depending on what they believe is [hopefully] best for society - and based on that people, viewers, will decide what platforms they will trust or watch content from and give their attention and support/money to - whether through shallow manipulative ads or payment.
Besides, private businesses don't need to allow free speech...
The left owns the online media, and they ban all non-left thought.
Meanwhile, if you try to speak in person, the cops come and beat you up.
Of course, if Google doesn't approve your content, nobody can find it, and if Cloudflare doesn't approve of your content, it isn't actually online.
And, with everybody locked up, you can't go advertise it in the physical world.
So, basically, unless Google and Cloudflare like your content -- or the major media bullies them into liking your content -- your content does not exist.
Misinformation that can lead people to doing dangerous things.
There was a time when many leaders considered homosexuality dangerous and magazines promoting homosexuality was misinformation.
It's easy to say something is misinformation now, but the standard of truth does not come now, it comes 20 years from now when history judges this moment.
We don't exist in a vacuum, and people are socialized into their beliefs. Either these doctors weren't given the faculties to distinguish fact from fiction in their education, they lack the mental and social capacities to protect themselves from falling for twisted logic and half-truths, or they're intentionally manipulating those vulnerable members of society for their own gain.
Whenever these dabates arise it would save a whole lot of time if participants assume as a given that everyone understands the first amendment as written. IMHO it will be far more useful to discuss the point of having this amendment in the first place. The idea that everytime someone has a remotely controversial idea, they have to setup an internet video company with global reach in order to propagate said idea is ridiculous. Even if you agree that Youtube has the right (which they do) to take down this video, their reasons for doing so should trouble everyone who in some way contributed to their near monopoly of internet video. Also, consider that they didnt even have to provide a reason. They provided one in the belief that the public actually favors censorship!
This isn't an idea that anyone is actually proposing to you, it's a strawman of your own making. The picture you're trying to paint whereby it's almost impossible for anyone to spread their ideas on the internet without Youtube's consent doesn't remotely correspond to reality. Every website has global reach, and plenty of controversial content has been spread on the internet in text form. You don't need video to propagate controversial ideas, but even then, video distribution existed on the internet before youtube. Filesharing and torrent sites exist, as do other streaming platforms which also have a global reach.
>They provided one in the belief that the public actually favors censorship!
The public does favor censorship. Free speech absolutism, to the degree of allowing even fraudulent and hateful speech to proliferate without check or consequence, is a minority view.
> Free speech absolutism, to the degree of allowing even fraudulent and hateful speech to proliferate without check or consequence, is a minority view.
I appreciate your illustrating what an actual strawman looks like.
So you're simply refusing to acknowledge anything which contradicts your narrative.
Well, good to know there's no point in continuing this conversation with you further. Good day.