There needs to be some sense of proportionality. If the government bashed down Icke’s door and smashed his computer then sure, we should worry about free speech. But getting banned from Youtube?
Google shares data with intelligence services, they have close contacts in the administration, they are a near-monopoly in multiple areas, they have a tremendous number of government contracts, they spend more on lobbying in DC than any other organization.
If we abdicate our rights to these organizations, the government can simply use them as a mechanism of enforcement that obviates the entire Bill of Rights.
If you want to upload some videos spreading some fake news propaganda there are quite literally thousands of different sites and services to do that.
Google and YouTube have no legal or moral obligation to allow you to use their specific services.
The only grey area here is when there is a true monopoly.
It's such a mess of contradictions.
2. Youtube should not remove disinformation because it violates the free speech of the misinformers. Youtube the entity has no rights over the content they deliver, in violation of their own Terms of Use. Any content anyone decides to upload should be allowed, including all the truly horrible stuff they content moderate which you never see.
Where is the contradiction?
> They can do what they want with their platform.
Of course they can, but they can't then say they believe in free speech. Similarly to "you don't make peace with your friends" : you can't say you're free speech if you only allow information you agree with.
What annoys me is when people think that free speech isn't a principle, but just a law in the US which applies to the government only. It's usually: "Hurr duur, it's a private company so it can practice full communism and we should be okay with that."
(That said, personally I have mixed feelings about this because I feel like it might be causing harm... Same with the antivaxxer crap.)
It’s a core tenet of American racists and fascists (and, I suspect, conspiracy theorists), because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to convert others to their cause without being silenced by their platforms.
Your argument also neatly contradicts personal gun ownership: “Someone was shot yesterday by their neighbor during an argument, so we should ban individual possession of weapons since guns have been used to enforce disagreeable opinions on others.”
Also, you can keep pursuing greater good by education and protection of human rights. No need to sacrifice free speech.
This is not a universally agreed-upon belief, and is specifically a belief I disagree with.
Free speech is just as sharp a blade as any other weapon. We seem to think that weapons can be carried safely because human beings will use good judgement about when to use them. I hold the same belief about speech: it is dangerous when wielded incorrectly, and societies are uniquely vulnerable to it above all other weapons. It's no more appropriate to me to allow wholly unrestricted use of speech than it is to allow wholly unrestricted use of weapons.
Most arguments for 'free speech' try to avoid the ethical debate about where the line between 'freedom to say anything' and 'harm to the greater good' is. I consider that line the most critical debate of all. Arguing that speech must never be restricted is just as extremist a view as arguing that speech must always be restricted. I much prefer the position "speech generally doesn't need to be restricted, but I'll make an exception in cases of significant risk/harm to societies".
It makes no sense in any "free" America where censorship of differing ideas is something we should strive for. When did the public suddenly get too sheltered from reality?
Pretty sure you missed a war there.
It's pretty simple. Many people rely on youtube's platform to reach viewers. This is the case for youtube recommendations, but also for subscriptions. When youtube bans someone, that person will reach a vastly smaller audience, in effect censoring them. Questions?
>I can say no.
That is a free speech issue as well. We might decide that you chose correctly, usually on the balance that the dead kittens advertiser has an equivalent platform available to them, but that doesn't rend it out of the arms of free speech
>If the government bashed down Icke’s door and smashed his computer then sure, we should worry about free speech.
Free speech is not only a concept in law. Freedom refers to the ability to do something, not only the legal right to do something. Free speech refers to the ability to reach an (non-captive) audience, not a legal right to say things in an empty room.
How do you decide what constitutes 'many' people? Is vimeo deserving of similar scrutiny or doesn't it reach enough people? What about the video site someone started yesterday that has 2 people on it? What about when Youtube decides not to upload a video because it is in the wrong format? Should we force Youtube to host every video anyone decides to upload?
Why does Pornhub not allow David Icke conspiracy videos? Hypothetically speaking, if David Icke uploaded his entire canon to Pornhub, and Pornhub took it down, is that a violation of free speech?
What about letters to the editor in a newspaper, are they 'censoring' all the letters they don't publish, or should they start publishing issues that are 300 pages long and cost $10 to include all the letters?
Is it really true that I can be obligated to accept an advertisement regardless of the content? How do the free speech Gods 'know' why I didn't accept the advertisement? Perhaps I just don't want to bother dealing with the complaining phone calls, or I am worried about jeopardising future business from pet shops. All these personal freedoms are obliterated in the service of free speech?
As I said, I really don't understand the free speech arguments here.