This is a "loophole" that is exploited over and over again by climate change denialists, cigarette companies, nazis...
Limiting speech within agreed boundaries is not problematic as long as it's a decision taken with a good criteria and with a good goal in mind. It's no different than any other decision we make on how we setup society.
To use your idea here - the cognitive biases being exploited are being exploited by youtube itself. In this example, Icke is a relatively divisive character even on the right wing. So it becomes important to ask - of the controversial figures that remain (on both sides) what cognitive biases is Google/Youtube aiming to exploit by allowing them to continue?
If we're not allowed to entertain that one side might simply be wrong enough to need its own correction, then we allow it to continue to march off the cliff. Dragging the overton window down with it.
It is simply not a given that the existence of a piece of propaganda implies that the absence of it (or intolerance of it) is equivalent to propaganda for another side. If I'm corrected from claiming 1+1=2, the other side rests on more than propaganda.
No that person did. It's precisely why he was against censorship. Propaganda is rather useless without censorship. It's why china, north korea, nazi germany, etc had censorship.
> This is a "loophole" that is exploited over and over again by climate change denialists, cigarette companies, nazis...
Right. Imagine if cigarette companies and nazis had the power to censor...
Your comment is actually in support of free speech but you are so blinded by agenda that you can't see it.
Nazis supported censorship and used your exact reasoning to censor. Think about it. The chinese government uses your exact reasoning to censor. Think about it.