YouTube announcement on content policies
twitter.com
twitter.com
I have distant family that has bought into the conspiracy theories. But now that Youtube has started directing traffic away from their channels and putting up these warnings they feel under attack and have only doubled down on their beliefs. It makes it a lot harder to work with them/discuss these issues.
When 49% of the country voted for a man who is currently the sitting president by law, and you can't even retweet his tweets it's pretty upsetting to them. They feel like they are under attack by the Big Tech companies. I know why Twitter did this. But it's only creating far more polarization between the rich people in power (aka Big Tech) and these people.
As for the rest, I would think that channeling more people into conspiracy theories (which was the previous status quo) is more harmful.
A woman died yesterday for QAnon.
The bias here is that the election has concluded with a clear winner in accordance with state law and the Constitution, and one man is using their platforms to make people doubt the integrity of the election.
Given how difficult it is to build trust in democracy and how easy it is to collapse it, I think that these companies would be irresponsible to continue providing a megaphone for these claims.
Alternative sites dedicated to the people who feel like they are "under attack" fail to launch because it turns out that catering to these people leads to nothing but misinformation, racism, and content that is either borderline or outright child pornography.
My 2c on this issue is that we will not resolve this situation by accommodating conspiracy theories and racism. Instead, the only way that we can reconcile these two groups of people is by ensuring that everyone sees the same news - recommenders that have partitioned the world in half need to be done away with, even if it reduces user engagement.
Yes, and because of the partisanship it’s mainly liberals that don’t want to take claims of election fraud very seriously.
When Trump won in 2016 there were claims of fraud for that in addition to claims of support from Russian hacks into voting machines. None of these were taken down.
There has been no evidence to support any of the claims being made about systemic election fraud.
Zero. What is there to take seriously?
> When Trump won in 2016 there were claims of fraud for that in addition to claims of support from Russian hacks into voting machines. None of these were taken down.
I don't think those ideas were mainstream at all on the left, and even if they were, they weren't being made by people in positions of power. There's a difference between someone anon on the internet claiming fraud (because that's meaningless) vs the sitting president doing so.
I don't call Barack Obama spending the time between Nov and Jan drumming up support for an insurrection against the government. Can you show me where that happened?
I don't recall Hillary Clinton ever making the claim of election fraud, or any elected official saying those things.
Right now you have the majority of Republicans in the House making those kind of claims, in addition to the President and several Senators. The fact you would equate the two shows you are too deeply biased to talk neutrally on this subject.
When one side of the partisan divide has willfully abandoned all pretense at adherence to facts, to protest that people call them out for this, while not calling the other side out for something they're not doing in any meaningful sense is...well, it's frankly absurd, and smacks of the same kind of party-over-reality logic that the aforementioned side is operating on.
It doesn't matter if 9%, 49%, or 99% of the people choose to follow someone who spits on facts when they don't get him everything he wants: the people asserting that reality is still reality are just as much in the right, no matter who or how many dislike it.
That's the way it always has been everywhere. If you believe otherwise then you're being naive.
There's always a line and it's moved by the platform owner at their will when it suits them. These platforms are a big like cities with eminent domain, most people are aware of it but don't care until the city is taking away their property.
Here's an amazing suggestion for you: if you don't like someone's opinion, don't watch their videos. Amazing. Super easy to do. Just click that little X button at the top right and move on with your life. No draconian censorship, no 1984 bullshit required. Just walk away.
Adults who can handle contrasting opinions should be allowed to see, read, share, and issue them to their hearts' content. Even if you think they're wrong. It's kind of the whole damned point of free speech, which is being pissed away by childish morons who never understood why people fought and died for it to start with.
I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but there is a story behind that analogy — it isn’t bubblebath that hides medieval infants in a washtub’s waste water.
"""Police Chief Robert J. Contee says two pipe bombs and a cooler with Molotov cocktails were also found near Capitol grounds."""
- https://www.fox5dc.com/news/over-50-people-arrested-14-offic...
Normally I consider Fox to be right-wing.
> did you post vociferously about how misinformation started those?
My argument would apply to all riots caused by disinformation regardless of if I recognise the disinformation as false rather than true.
As it happens, I believe those riots were triggered by people who believe their lives do not matter to the police on the basis of personal experience. You believe I am wrong about that? Sure, ok, now tell me: why does being wrong about that change my argument that misinformation can cause real harm? You consider the BLM riots to be a bigger event, and that it was based on untruths, so tell me: on what basis does your claim mean that I should stop being concerned about mobs being goaded into action by lies?
You don’t need to convince me I’m wrong about the BLM movement to do that.
> The same argument would apply to all riots caused by disinformation regardless of if I recognise the disinformation as false rather than true.
You make a fair point about the misinformation from a purely argument-logic standpoint (both classes of events being spurred on by some amount of misinformation).
The greater gestalt of my argument is that it's asinine to consider any side of the mainstream media in the USA to somehow not be a biased source of misinformation, malicious and deliberate or otherwise. You can pick your side, Fox or MSNBC or anything else, and get the bias you "prefer", but no matter what you're getting bias, denial of reality when it's inconvenient for the narrative, and propaganda designed to spur you into particular thoughts and actions. If you're going to get mad about it for this event, if you're a principled person, you should have been mad about it for prior events too, even if the results don't run in favour of your own priors.
We can fight about the particulars of the situation, or work together to understand how we're being manipulated into arguing about particulars instead of looking at who's manipulating us, how, why, and in what overall direction.
I've offered an idea for an experiment that could plausibly lead to a (partial) solution here:
You sound like a high-church advocate getting mad that angry parishioners have started to question the orthodoxy. You should understand that America was founded on that kind of questioning and that kind of rejection of power in favour of open discourse, even by people who are wrong.
> amplified by radicals
Meanwhile the propaganda side is amplified by the people who own the media; ten thousand times louder than any dissident.
I pray this sort of thing just ends up pushing people towards decentralized platforms where they can speak their mind without censors, moderators, and goody-two-shoes apparatchiks complaining about "misinformation". It's so patronizing.
The rest of us will stay secure in our belief that Coronavirus is real, that 5G isn't a government conspiracy, and that Donald Trump lost the election.
Each of those three items have very specific dangerous implications for the people spreading disinfo about them.
Seems like an easy wedge to exploit if you were a hostile country looking to conduct psyops on America. Did you consider the wider security implications of half the country no longer believing in fair elections?
Saying this demonstrates the false dichotomy. I believe all of those things, too. Guess what: I also believe that flyover Americans deserve a shot at the world their forefathers were working toward. Wedges have been put into place to make it difficult to hold a position like this politically; who represents me?
> Seems like an easy wedge to exploit if you were a hostile country looking to conduct psyops on America.
Which country is that, and why make the assumption that it comes from outside your own borders?
> Did you consider the wider security implications of half the country no longer believing in fair elections?
Seems like this is a mandate to produce a more secure election. Shouldn't that make both sides happier? Isn't it possible to believe that the election systems are rife with opportunities for fraud and miscounts? Did you live through the 2000 Gore/Bush election? America can do better.
If I can criticize a tv channel for running dumb shows, then I sure as shit can criticize a website that knowingly chooses to spread lies that predictably get people killed and destabilize democracy.
The position of the government is that Trump lost the election.
The position of the sitting president is that he won.
If Trump signed an executive order saying “Actually I won” that would then be him acting as the government, but I suspect that such an order wouldn’t actually succeed and so the position of the government would still, at the end of the day, be Trump losing.
One side is detached from reality and they happen to have the same political allegiance. Doesn't give any more merit to their claims.
And the thing is, the reality of the situation is so apparent that I don't even have to specify which side I am talking about!
People right of center tend to overestimate how much biological differences matter (versus societal forces), people on the left tend to underestimate it. That's been true for a long time. I don't think either point of view is particularly censored though.
We're talking about censoring outright lies (the kind that the Putin government puts out, say)
And what exactly are you talking about? The women can't do math as well as men? Please do share.
Were you referring to gender or race? Because racism (and ideas of racial supremacy) is not not rooted in science. That would be another right wing conspiracy theory.
It's really hard to have a discussion when the examples you use are so vague.
If this was driven by courts, they would have an order to show it.
I swear, the amount of people here blatantly and blindly support everything tech media does is rather interesting. I'd almost say there is a concerted effort here to push a pro-censorship and pro-tech narrative here backed by a political faction.
Oddly enough, you can still say Trump stole 2016 on youtube.
I could say the same thing about your ask that YouTube allow a free-for-all on their platform but that's only because I'm witnessing the logical conclusion here in the US. We have to do something different or these events will repeat themselves.
The way to make the population aware is not through videos that people "MUST SEE!!11". Or typical manipulative ways of steering the masses.
Of course the winners write history, if they were correct or not is in the end "less important" in some ways and more important in others
It's quite literally the seeds to fracturing a society.
> We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities.
> We believe everyone should have easy, open access to information and that video is a powerful force for education, building understanding, and documenting world events, big and small.
> We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular.
With the events that occurred in the past year, these statements are completely false.
Why most people don't realize that censorship leads us to a very very dark futur?
In my opinion, everything would be so much better if we could educate kids and adult on "critical thinking" and "intelligence", instead of censoring everything that could be "fake" (for real or not) based on decision of the ruling cast of a country.
Meanwhile, you’re enjoying the benefits of commenting on a moderated forum where @dang has arbitrary power to delete posts and ban accounts. And it’s precisely because of his moderation on this privately-run publicly-available platform that we continue to enjoy relatively troll-free, level-headed adult discussions about difficult topics.
The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking.
As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform and in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. At worst it was debunked by the community.
Now, at the opposite, in my opinion, every article and opinion can be posted on HN. And the real value here are the comments and discussion around these links so that there can be a collective critical thinking réflexion about them.
Whoever can post anything, and sometimes I'm wondering if the article is true, if there are hidden fact or something that was deformed. And then, the comments let people all give their own opinion and often share interesting relating links and information.
From all of that, it give you a better base to have plentyfull of elements to make your own opinion on a topic!
By what mechanism? It's a basic reddit-style forum that allows comments and up- and down-voting. What's the secret sauce that causes Hacker News to "support critical thinking"?
The answer isn't secret, and it's pretty simple: there are commenting guidelines[1]. If you don't follow the guidelines, your posts are killed. If you repeatedly don't follow the guidelines, your account is restricted.
This is the same exact mechanism that distinguishes subreddits with high-quality comment sections (/r/science, /r/askhistorians) from the rest. And it's worth noting that even the rest have some forms of moderation. You'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere on the Internet with no moderation that hasn't become an absolute cesspool dominated by the worst possible actors.
> As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform
If I'm reading this right, you acknowledge that @dang and co have the power to moderate Hacker News essentially however they see fit, and yet you simultaneously recognize that they're capable of exercising these powers judiciously and only when needed.
Maybe sit back and reflect on that for a minute.
> ...in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator.
You can literally see a graveyard of three dead comments on this very thread, that are invisible to anyone who doesn't have `showdead` flag turned on. It's not remotely difficult to find accounts whose posts are hidden by default from the community as a whole, to the point where some people make a point of notifying individuals who've been commenting for years without realizing that nobody can see their posts.
The fact that you don't personally see moderation is not evidence that there's no moderation.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Baseless, unsubstantiated, and repeated complaints about election fraud could easily be argued to fall afoul of this guideline and I would not be personally surprised to find [dead] comments here along such lines.
At this point we know with absolute certainty that a lack of censorship (either direct or self-censorship due to societal costs) leads to a very, very dark place. Time to start exploring other options.
What proof? There is still less war and conflict today than the last couple of centuries.
With free speech, it should come responsibility. You should be responsible for your speech, if it is false, and pay for it in a Court, but you should not be censored.
The problem is that the same people that accuse Trump of spreading misinformation with no proofs are the same that cheered on the New York Times and WP accusing Trump of being a Putin puppet with no profs whatsoever over years because they wanted to prevent the "legitimate transfer of power" as you say.
If what you say is false, you should pay for it, including Trump, but you should have the right to say it.
The problem your are seeing in the us is not really due to misinformation being available, but to the country on its way to Idiocracy.
The issue is the real lack of intelligence. A long tradition of corrupt leaders have pushed for the suppression of critical thinking in the population as it is way more convenient to control the population.
Trump leds to having people acting like that because everything now is about reacting and not thinking anymore.
Imagine one second that Google leaders were friends with Trump that would protect their interest. Which truth would be enforcing?
Look at the situation in China?
Look at Russia that poison its opponents but decide that the state truth is that it is a 'fake news'.
Read farhenheit 451 and 1984 and you will understand!
Problem is, there are only a handful of cafés in the world that everyone frequents and so there's an onus on the people who run them to make a lot of decisions about who gets to say what. Add to that the cafés don't live off selling coffee or having debates, they sell adverts for other things, which complicates their incentives.
I think it's awful how all the social media firms have waited until now to grow a spine, but I'm not sure what the best course would have been.
I'm sort of ambivalent on them myself, but I do think it's worth pointing out that events have arguably destabilized in tandem with the increasing use of censorship by the social media firms. Open debate is, per liberal theory, supposed to reduce political acrimony and to serve as a 'relief valve' for public discontent that would otherwise be vented in violence and disorder. As censorship increases, you should expect more disorder and more political violence rather than less if free speech theory is correct. If free speech theory is wrong, then censorship should cool political passions and enable the state to recoup legitimacy.
Reality is more complex than that, but we should at least acknowledge that our constitutional system of government assumes that free and open debate will help to maintain a peaceful and orderly republic.
These "cafes" are small/tiny and have a stronger social construct. We know each other and are held accountable to each other. Not just pissing on the commons.
IMHO, storming White House already crosses the line for a free and fair debate. And so do baseless calls to do that.
1) Any private company (or person) has the right to determine what speech they tolerate, amplify or disseminate
2) No company should be so big that their assertion of that right dramatically changes the national conversation
And political affiliation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.
If you go on a political tirade, I have every right to kick you out of my home. Or office. Or restaurant. Or app.
Your right to kick me out of your private business because you don’t like my opinions will be looked at the same way. Fundamentally illiberal.
I have a human right to hold and express any political opinion I want. Eventually we’ll have to campaign to make free speech a civil right and a protected class, just like they did in the 60s for race, and later for sexual orientation. We iterate our laws as we acquire new knowledge through moral science.
We are rapidly getting to the point where elections are not based on merit of candidates but by what the media says and allows to be said.
Having a free press and allowing citizens to be heard becomes crucial to a functioning democracy.
That being said, I'm also in favor of letting companies have freedom to run their companies as they see fit as long as it is legal and moral. But this decision by YouTube saddens me.
If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.
I mean the US is already there.
I recall many years ago having to actively search for the positions and speeches from Ron Paul because he was barely given air time in debates.
Same goes for Andrew Yang where I only got to know him through alternative media sources (podcasts) instead of major news channels.
> If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.
This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it. This event was not a response to censorship, it was a response to an subset of the population being fed a steady diet of outrage and misinformation and then putting on your surprised pikachu face when they get upset that their candidate lost an election. These people had the ability to be heard and debate and participate, they just are not willing to accept the consequences of that participation or to acknowledge that their candidate lost.
It's human behavior when people don't feel like they are being heard and understood they raise their voice, become less agreeable, and when something is important enough to them and there is no peaceful way to resolve things they become violent.
Acknowledging what someone else says and repeating back to them what they are saying works amazingly well for disarming conflict.
When dialog ceases to be the means by which people can peacefully resolve their differences then violence is inevitable.
Censoring and banning people further escalates conflict because it takes away people's ability to feel like they are being heard and understood.
If instead the dialog going something like "well why do you believe that, what evidence do you have to support that claim, did you consider X, here's why I disagree with you, etc" then maybe people would have changed their minds.
Instead, by and large, the approach taken by the media and tech companies was "you guys are wrong, you're an idiot, and we are going to silence you". I don't think that helps and only further escalates things.
Along your point though, should there then be censorship of the ideas that led people to the BLM riots? I don't think censorship is the answer there either.
Who gets to decide what is true and how does that not lead to dangerous concentrations of power?
top comment on HN is how this could be dangerous road to go down on.
top replies on twitter are how this doesn't go far enough.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Me too. And that goes for the whole thing. The comments are filled with people peddling conspiracy theories, and saying we still don't quite know if there was significant fraud in the election. We're getting to a point where truth doesn't exist.
But yesterday, a mob breached the Capitol attempting to stop the peaceful transition of power. In no small part because of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
The people running these companies, I believe, have a moral responsibility to act.
Let’s not pretend the Internet has enabled something particularly nefarious here.
By pressing these companies to be the arbiters of free speech, you’re exacerbating the problem. These thoughts and people don’t go away, they just move to other platforms.
I don't think it was a good idea to go inside the capital and it will cause very negative and counterproductive blowback.
Media coverage of this will be biased, compare it to the "mostly peaceful" protests happening all summer. It will be used as an excuse to further censorship and sideline sympathizers. The reaction will increase polarization and decrease our ability to communicate.
I'm not saying election fraud happened but I completely understand their frustration.
..other than the nearly 60 court cases? [1] or the dozens of news outlets that have attempted and failed to find actual evidence? [2] Saying they're not allowed to present their evidence is patently false.
It's not like this is the first time the exact same people made the same claims with no evidence [3].
How long should they be taken seriously for?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+of+2020+election+fr...
[3] https://apnews.com/article/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d
I do have some trust in our institutions and our court system, though. The fact that there has been bi-partisan dismissal across the board of claims of election fraud - even from judges and officials who are on-the-record Trump supporters - leads me to believe that there is little here of substance. Why would Republican Trump supporters who are proud (perhaps to a fault) of defying the mainstream media suddenly fall in line? They didn't fall in line with the other 'fake news' events throughput the presidency, why this one? Imagine the credibility they'd gain if there was actually enough fraud to change the election, and they found it!
I've seen people point to the fact that many of the cases were dismissed by judges without actually hearing the evidence, due to clerical or timing problems. I am incredulous. In order to accept that, I have to believe that a Republican judge who supports Donald Trump and presumably wanted to see him back in the presidency looked at the lawsuit, understood the situation and it's urgency, and shrugged his (or her) shoulders and said 'sorry, you might be right, but I'm not gonna look at it.' I don't buy it.
These people are already suspicious of the legitimacy of the election, denying them the transparency of discovery and a public trial erodes that faith further. Gore got a trial in 2000 with a challenge to the electoral college. The mass of mail in ballots this year represents a dramatic change from the norm and I understand why people want more scrutiny. But really, if half the country doesn't trust the integrity of our election system do we even have a democracy anymore?
There are an infinite number of positions between China-style full control of speech and, say Parler or Voat style "anything goes including things such as calling for killing all the n__g__s and k_k_s and f_g___s".
Most systems that attempt to do useful work require some kind of friction or impedance or damping. I've seen nothing that suggests that information systems are any different.
I'm sure there will be no violence since nobody will fight to their death fighting against that, after all it's never happened before let alone for smaller restrictions on people's freedom. Wow, the past, what a good thing it was without the Internet acting as a megaphone, certainly no revolutions nor wars for independence.
Just like how NSA spying was justified for national security purposes, you see people abusing the system and spying on ex lovers.
The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy.
https://www.taobao.com/list/product/%E7%BB%B4%E5%B0%BC%E7%86...
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/05/state-officials-asses...
Calls were made too early too many times over the course of the last couple of months, eroding the trust of the 99% of the completely normal Trump supporters out there.
Even if the Democrats are 100% sure the election is totally squeaky clean there should be no problem to go over it with a fine tooth comb so that everyone can be certain. Instead any attempt at transparency was ridiculed from the beginning with lots of goal post moving to follow about just how much discrepancies there actually were.
Some law changes right before the election also don’t really make sense (like waiving the need to verify signatures and in fact making it impossible to do after the fact by destroying envelopes) and instead if bringing clarity to the situation, mainstream media ridiculed anyone who had doubts about this as being crazy.
My problem is before it was certified, the media “called” it and ridiculed anyone who doubted them.
It’s totally reasonable for people to want to know why is it that dead people voted, (and more importantly, how many), why strange laws were passed right before the election that made signatures un-important, or why observers were being given a hard time during counting. Instead of being treated as reasonable people, we are lumped in with the crazies who shout that all of this is fraud before there is evidence of it. However, it is equally crazy to shout that “there is no fraud!” before all of this is actually ironed out, and that is where mainstream media failed and destroys any existing trust I had.
I have never watched Fox News. I’ve laughed at stupid NY Post stories my whole life with my likeminded liberal friends. But I am not so blind with rage towards Trump that I can’t see when the media will do anything within their (soft) power to make sure he doesn’t win, even at the cost of their journalistic integrity.
Yes, sometimes dead people 'vote', but that happens in all elections and more importantly happens in both parties, but not enough to swing elections.
I have a pet theory (maybe a conspiracy theory, idk) that the reason the Republican officials have been so quick to shut down fraud claims is because any investigations will find just as much or more fraud on their side.
They profited for years off of this bile and misinformation and now that the tide is starting to turn they want to pretend like they weren't a huge part of the problem.
With that said.
DCPD failed to inform FPS\SS of the protesters breaking through 5 barricades and into a building designed to withstand seige until the protesters were almost in the chambers forcing them to flee. The factual narrative here is there was a compromise of congressional security and trust in DCPD.
How we end up, instead, getting the hyper-critical over-the-top insurrection narrative from every MSM company and all the heavy-handed fallout of that narrative without even evidence of busted doors I just don't know, but 4 dead and a handfull injured doesn't even amount to a weekend in Chicago.
Nobody is buying this narrative.
It leaves a vacuum though, i bet parler's revenue doubles in 60 days.
Unfortunately the conventional financial system and regular internet are under the US Liberal control. Their approved narrative dictates who is allowed to use said infrastructure.
We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's high time (in the US and likely EU) we take a long look at Social Media practices and regulate them.
Today Youtube has almost a monopoly on video content on the Internet. If you have a monopoly the priority of power is controlling it and censor "dangeorus information".
From now on it will be impossible for anyone to post anything substantial in youtube that goes against status quo or that offends anyone, specially those in charge.
A new window of opportunity has been opened for a new service that provides uncensored content over the internet.
The suggestion now is that social media is ok to use as a tool to organize the kind of looting and arson that results in the killing of people like David Dorn, but not organize a protest that results in vandalism of the hallowed halls of insider trading.
A few years ago, Steve Scalise was shot at a congressional baseball game. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook did not see themselves as responsible for the online hate that led to it. Was it MSNBC that radicalized the shooter then? Where was he getting his information from?
The fact of the matter is that violent language against specific political figures is acceptable, and violence from others is not acceptable. This is further proved in specific cases like the Kathy Griffin decapitation video, the drawing of Trump's head being cut off (Facebook sent a specific memo to Cognizant that this was a valid exception).
This is being done because the vast majority of people working at these companies see fit to lecture the world on topics like unconscious bias, and then selectively apply their policies when it aligns with their personal politics - completely oblivious to the other cases where enforcement should be equal.
This will be seen as an escalation and further undermine the credibility of these companies in the eyes of millions. If at all they stay it will be because of prevailing trends and network effects only.
I guarantee you that at this very second you could search twitter and find folks freely expressing their admiration for Rand Paul's neighbour, who attacked him so violently that he was critically hospitalized. There is a sickness in political discourse that is being selectively attended to by people suffering from the very same sickness.
Trump has already been successful in creating the image of a rigged election in the minds of his supporters. He has been working on this for at least a year. This already happened. It can't be undone by censorship.
The only thing that censorship will achieve is to further the "us versus them" mentality. Instead of visiting YouTube, where maybe 0.1% of the content is right-wing conspiracy talk, they will retreat to some "free speech" media site where every other channel is crackpot hour.
yesterday was a gift to social media monopolies.
Censorship is not necessary in a fair society.
Anything that does not fit Big Brother's version of history is censored and banned. YouTube and other big tech companies like Facebook have become Big Brother.
If you think they just cancel out the right, what if they cancel out the left and moderates as well?
It is the start of a civil war after Trump Patriots invaded DC and the Capitol building. We haven't seen the last of it. Censoring and banning people won't make it go away.