> And how was that service made available before YouTube existed?
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.
> There is no pandemic exception to basic civil rights.
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.
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.
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.