> The biggest issue is that the open debate is vulnerable to astroturfing with corporate influence and financial backing, which can completely drown out others and turn public opinion, through sheer exposure.
Meh. Money buys speech has been a thing since day zero. If anything the internet has made this problem smaller because you don't have to buy a TV station to publish video anymore. Then the corporate propaganda isn't the only thing people see, which allows them to see it for what it is, which makes them think this is some kind of novel problem never previously encountered, when it's really a novel solution that makes the old and pervasive problem much more conspicuous through contrast.
You also have to see the irony in suggesting that corporations decide what people can see in order to protect us from corporations influencing the public debate.
> And when it comes to subjects like human rights, there is a definite right and wrong, not a "truth in the middle".
That would be really convenient, but it's still as complicated as anything. There is a truth but it isn't a simple truth and that means getting it right is hard work.
Uncle Google doesn't have a magic wand of righteousness that lets them tell right from wrong over everybody else in the world.
The "marketplace of ideas" clearly doesn't work for the betterment of mankind and the world. Corporate interests throw vast amounts of money into astroturf campaigns, creating propaganda and misinformation, in order to discredit their opponents, who do not have the same access to funds and influence. Google, FB et.al. are part of the problem, with their deep influences in politics. They ban the token nutjob like Icke ever so often, so they can claim they're "doing something", meanwhile their algorithms continue to funnel people from completely ordinary videos to conspiracy theories and virulent content. It's disturbing how quickly this happens on a brand-new profile.
Misinformation spreads like wildfire because it doesn't need fact checks, it doesn't need to be based on research. As long as you can get enough spread, you can get a large number of people to believe anything, simply because they heard it from someone. People are not rational actors.
Witness the demonization of pipeline protestors, people who protest the clear-cutting of forests, people who argue for trans rights. They upset the corporate-run status quo, so they are suppressed by the authorities, who act on the whims of the rich and powerful.
Witness the rise of the alt-right, the so-called "intellectual dark web" and the influence of sites like 4chan and 8chan.
Armed people barging into governmental buildings, and basically being allowed to do so almost unimpeded by police, photo ops for the media, a show of force for their allies. I've seen them ridiculed as yokels, but it didn't matter. What matters is visibility and the "look at what we can do without being stopped" factor.
Imagine what would have happened if BLM, a group of Muslims or any left-wing group had tried to do the same thing. Think Kent State and the National Guard.
The message is clear: Act against capitalism and the powers that be and you will be suppressed, by unlimited force if necessary
It's incredibly unlikely you'll agree with the powers that be on every issue, so you'll find yourself deplatformed, and unable to speak out against injustice. As you mentioned, you feel that the powers that be are suppressing certain ideas. If you want censorship, guess who will be in charge of deciding what to censor.
Sure, astroturfing and other misinformation campaigns can happen if speech is truly free, but the alternative is far worse. With free speech, if your ideas have merit then at least there is a chance they will be recognized and your audience can grow. With complete censorship, you have no chance at all. Free speech is the least bad of these two options.
"The alternative is far worse", with us currently being in a state of world politics where whoever shouts the loudest on social media gets to set the agenda.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. No ifs or buts about that.
In the same breath, it is very important to realize that your freedom of speech does not absolve you from responsibility for what you say. It does not obligate others to facilitate your speech, it does not entitle you to any platform you wish, and it does not obligate anyone to listen to you.
Similarly to the second amendment, which enshrines your right to own weapons (being the foundation of a well-regulated militia and so on) does not obligate anyone to provide you with weapons, nor the facilities to train with and maintain weapons, and it certainly doesn't require anyone to admit your onto their property if you are currently holding any weapons.
I agree with what you say here. Freedom of speech does not obligate YouTube to give anyone a platform, as they are a private entity. It does not obligate anyone to listen to you. What the top level comment is saying though, is that just because there is no legal requirement, doesn't mean we can't "ask nicely" or otherwise strive towards the idea that the predominant video platform refrain from censorship.
There is no legal obligation for YouTube to listen to us, but there is no reason we can't ask for less censorship. If they say no, then they are well within their rights, but we don't have to be happy about it either. Just because we can't legally force change doesn't mean we must abandon the cause. The most optimistic scenario would be if public sentiment changes enough such that YouTube feels they are being seen as unfair and it is damaging to their reputation/bottom line, perhaps we may see a change in their censorship policies. This is an ideal to strive for, and uses social/economic pressure as opposed to legal pressure. It is like your obligation to be a helpful neighbor or to be a caring friend. It's not by force of law, but people are expected to do it because it's "the right thing to do." In the same way, when you're the predominant video platform on the internet, the right thing to do is not to censor opinions you disagree with.
Meh. Money buys speech has been a thing since day zero. If anything the internet has made this problem smaller because you don't have to buy a TV station to publish video anymore. Then the corporate propaganda isn't the only thing people see, which allows them to see it for what it is, which makes them think this is some kind of novel problem never previously encountered, when it's really a novel solution that makes the old and pervasive problem much more conspicuous through contrast.
You also have to see the irony in suggesting that corporations decide what people can see in order to protect us from corporations influencing the public debate.
> And when it comes to subjects like human rights, there is a definite right and wrong, not a "truth in the middle".
That would be really convenient, but it's still as complicated as anything. There is a truth but it isn't a simple truth and that means getting it right is hard work.
Uncle Google doesn't have a magic wand of righteousness that lets them tell right from wrong over everybody else in the world.