> When we talk about a "free" society, we are talking about government intervention.
I'm not sure how to respond to this without venturing into semantics. When we talk about a free society, we are talking about the freedom of the people who make up that society to pursue their own interests and livelihood without oppression or undue interference. It doesn't make it ok to aggress upon or oppress people if you somehow define the perpetrator of that aggression or oppression to be "not government."
> We don't mean that every radio station has to play my song, every tv station has to play my show, and every billboard has to show my message.
However we do mean that everyone have access to the airwaves and that everyone have access to telecom infrastructure and other utilities. The reason section 230 of the CDA is at issue here is that companies like youtube are legally protected from liability for content that they display, but there are no legal consequences for their refusal to show any content. This creates the conditions for them to unaccountably promote one side of an issue to the exclusion of another. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could be a bad thing.
> You would think that with such a right-wing userbase,
The userbase here is not right-wing.
> the aspect of Youtube's private property would emerge in the conversation.
Its been brought up numerous times. Almost every time section 230 reform is mentioned, in fact. Which is good because these issues need to be hashed out.
> But that's not the issue, instead, the "CeNsOrShIp" crowd is more concerned about having white supremacist ideas widely marginalized in polite society.
Poisoning the well doesn't advance the conversation, rather the opposite.
I'm not sure how to respond to this without venturing into semantics. When we talk about a free society, we are talking about the freedom of the people who make up that society to pursue their own interests and livelihood without oppression or undue interference. It doesn't make it ok to aggress upon or oppress people if you somehow define the perpetrator of that aggression or oppression to be "not government."
> We don't mean that every radio station has to play my song, every tv station has to play my show, and every billboard has to show my message.
However we do mean that everyone have access to the airwaves and that everyone have access to telecom infrastructure and other utilities. The reason section 230 of the CDA is at issue here is that companies like youtube are legally protected from liability for content that they display, but there are no legal consequences for their refusal to show any content. This creates the conditions for them to unaccountably promote one side of an issue to the exclusion of another. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could be a bad thing.
> You would think that with such a right-wing userbase,
The userbase here is not right-wing.
> the aspect of Youtube's private property would emerge in the conversation.
Its been brought up numerous times. Almost every time section 230 reform is mentioned, in fact. Which is good because these issues need to be hashed out.
> But that's not the issue, instead, the "CeNsOrShIp" crowd is more concerned about having white supremacist ideas widely marginalized in polite society.
Poisoning the well doesn't advance the conversation, rather the opposite.