windwalker wrote:Am I correct in assuming that many here are in favor of allowing private entities to determine what is acceptable speech or information on the Internet or not?
In my case, yes, you are absolutely correct in assuming this.
Firstly, refer to Lao Dan's comments on this issue in his most recent post.
Please.
I already gave the theoretical example of me posting a dramatic and for some people convincing YouTube video in favour of a bleach cure. I'll elaborate: quoting my impeccable medical credentials, I recommend people to drink bleach as a prophylaxis or cure for Covid-19. I say that even President Trump recommended this cure before he was forced by deep-state mind control to retract. I tell them not to be worried by a burning sensation in the gut, it's just the bleach killing the coronavirus (and evil spirits, and alien DNA), so keep drinking! And even better: If your child shows symptoms of coughs or sniffles, make the child drink bleach too. It's the only way to save that poor toddler!
Let's assume 9,999 in 10,000 people who see my video think "That guy is nuts. And drinking bleach seems to be a bad idea, even with regard to Coronavirus. So I'll ignore this advice." (Well done !!)
That leaves just 1 in 10,000 who are convinced by my well-produced video, by my passionate words, by my wide-eyed advocacy of this cure. And who then drink bleach. Let's assume that my video goes viral, is retweeted and so on. I get 10,000,000 views. Which means that 1,000 people start chugging back the bleach. They considered the evidence, both mine and that of federal health authorities, the various other viewpoints, and as free citizens they decide that Fauci is wrong, I'm right, that warning labels on the bleach bottles are fake (placed there by the deep state), and this is their considered opinion. So they drink deep!
500 people suffer serious or lasting injury to their digestive tract, 500 die. The news of these injuries and deaths is dimissed by some as fake news, propaganda from the media and medical conspiracists. My video is now at 20,000,000 views and rising, bleach sales are rising too.
Now you may be of the opinion that free speech on the Internet is such an inviolable principle that nothing can justify a video of this type being taken down. If some people are simply too uninformed, too trusting or too stupid to reject my recommendations, and instead drink bleach, or give bleach to their child, then that's sad but such things have to be accepted as collateral damage. Absolute free speech takes priority.
As I said, I would disagree. I think my video should be taken down, because it presents a major threat to public health (and it's also simply wrong, with no medical basis.) Sure, in my fantasy example I've made things a little more extreme but I believe it's true to the essence of the current "take down or leave up" debate/dispute.
In my opinion, free speech is in principle a truly great and important thing, but nonetheless needs to be subject to certain limitations. Exactly where these limitations lie is a tricky issue, and one that has to be subject to ongoing discussion and debate. Like many other issues in a liberal democracy. Especially when the real-world situation presents new problems, new challenges, as is the case with the global pandemic.
Looks like we're freely debating this here, too...
Oh yes, as regards "private entities" making the decision... YouTube provides a service, makes money from this service, issues guidelines about what is acceptable for posting in YouTube and what isn't. So yes, they are entitled to decide if they don't want particular videos on their site. (To give another example, they are entitled to and would remove a video of a kidnapped person actually being tortured to death in a serial killer's cellar, even if whoever posts the video declares it should here be viewed as an artistic or political statement).
Or do you think that, instead, federal government should have the responsibility, right and ability to remove videos from YouTube, instead of YouTube doing this itself?
