What does this have to do with freedom? Private companies can’t take away freedom, only the government can.
I mean, we used to have this thing called visiting friends or gathering in a public space, which the governments of most states have currently prevented us from doing, leaving the internet to be the only option to reach any audience.
So yes, insofar as the public square is an essential function and since it's been banned from physically being a reality, then the government must assure that there are alternatives, or undo the physical bans on gathering. There is no pandemic exception to basic civil rights.
Unfortunately, what we have here is a major double standard where leftists can freely gather in the streets to protest police brutality, but right wingers cannot without severe media criticism, and police action by governments.
This actually highlights a fundamental question which is at the heart of most disagreements on this issue. As a non-US-ian, looking at the US Constitution there does not seem to be an equivalent of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." In the UDoHR the right to life and the right to liberty are equated, so how do we manage situations where we have to trade off one or the other (as is the case here)? I recall the old saying, "your right to swing your fists, ends where my nose begins".
Therefore a blanket statement that there is no pandemic exception to civil rights, specifically, the right to free assembly and freedom of movement, elevates those rights above a right to "life" (which presumably provides a limit on others' behaviours that risk life).
Personally, I can't see that being viable, based on the "common sense" aphorism mentioned earlier. Therefore, there must be some balance. Clearly, achieving that balance is a politically quixotic exercise in the sense that you'll be pissing off one group or another. Consensus is probably key here. Good luck achieving that in the US.
EDITED: grammar. Seriously, I should learn to re-read before hitting submit.
Gathering in a public space = Facebook/Twitter/Mastodon/etc != YouTube
Broadcasting = YouTube
And your last sentence about leftists/right-wingers and double-standards is demonstrably false. There have been just as many protests by pro-Trump/anti-lockdown/stop-the-steal groups as there have about BLM/count-the-votes protests. Both have attracted varying levels of police action (BLM the most by my assessment), and both have had various levels of pro/anti discussion/criticism in the media (depending on which you read). On the last point, freedom of assembly does not equal freedom from criticism.
EDITED: to fix formatting.
Youtube is a distributed (as in "many people") media, which is essential for democracy. In some countries, it's the only source of truth about the politics.
Essential services should be provided by multiple providers. That's called competition and ends up serving everyone better.
Were it for profit, yes.
> Essential services should be provided by multiple providers.
I don't think this is demonstratively true anywhere.
Also, "competition" necessarily implies a company can refuse service to a customer, which is not what I (or most people) want with essential services like electricity, water, police, fire protection, etc.
However we have multiple utilities already. They follow regulations to ensure a level of service and reliability, but are often entrenched by these very same regulations which is why others are prevented from serving the same area. If anything we should have even more competition so that we can actually see some progress instead of the regulatory gridlock and decaying infrastructure that exists.
This is similar to ISPs. You can consider network services as essential need in the modern era, but nobody wants a slow nationalized ISP service (look at how Australia screwed that up). Instead multiple local competitive organizations have always delivered the best outcome whenever that's been allowed and encouraged.
Then how does competition address decaying infrastructure if not by running new lines?
What I'm saying is that a single state-run provider isn't a great model for most things, even critical things like utilities. The state can own the rights and build the things that only the state can, while the rest can be leased, shared, operated and maintained by multiple private organizations that compete to offer the best service without the regulatory incumbency.
Allowing use in return for upkeep and updates is a well-known model in many industries, especially real estate. It can be applied to the public sector easily. We're slowly seeing things change as private enterprise finds new ways like hyperlocal co-ops and distributed infrastructure like solar power, but there's still much more progress that can be made.
This idea that only freedom from the state counts is very pernicious, and it's at the root of the inordinate power corporations have in today's world.
Freedom is the ability to do what you want. Any conditions that don't let you do what you want are restraints on your freedom, even if they are being enforced by a private company.
This isn’t a very useful argument when balancing the rights of multiple entities in society though.