I understand its a complicated issue with strong feelings on both sides. However from the 'hysterical side', there is concern about the fact that access to any meaningful and practical free speech forum is difficult. Further, Youtube, Twitter and Facebook have a near monopoly on the social media forum. That I agree does not alone justify obligating these sites to provide free speech.
However, here is where it gets difficult. Imagine one of these sites (e.g. youtube) begins to limit access to one side of the conversation only and at the same time begins to distort the truth to fit youtube's business or political plans. Imagine further such actions hurt the public's access to critical information that is needed for the public and decision makers to make rational choices. That is what has been occurring recently. For instance only allowing opinions that align with WHO to be posted, where WHO has been caught lying and promoting Communist China's views of the origin and spread of the virus while deleting a video by expert physicians who tested thousands and concluded that the lockdown should end soon is inexcusable. It is also a danger to our national economy, social sanity and national security which depends on a strong economy. Then I just saw a W. Post video declaring that the coronavirus could only have come from the wet market, a view repeatedly debunked, its clear youtude perhaps for business reasons is misleading America and our children. In such a case, a monopolist should and probably could be ordered to post opposing medical and tech expert opinions. Remember and I am my incorrect, Google owns youtube, Google has large financial connections to China and may willingly control its youtube postings to please China. China is well known for its bullying tactics.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ThomasS27.
Free Speech Forum issues where facts distorted damaging economy
I understand its a complicated issue with strong feelings on both sides. However from the 'hysterical side', there is concern about the fact that access to any meaningful and practical free speech forum is difficult. Further, Youtube, Twitter and Facebook have a near monopoly on the social media forum. That I agree does not alone justify obligating these sites to provide free speech.
However, here is where it gets difficult. Imagine one of these sites (e.g. youtube) begins to limit access to one side of the conversation only and at the same time begins to distort the truth to fit youtube's business or political plans. Imagine further such actions hurt the public's access to critical information that is needed for the public and decision makers to make rational choices. That is what has been occurring recently. For instance only allowing opinions that align with WHO to be posted, where WHO has been caught lying and promoting Communist China's views of the origin and spread of the virus while deleting a video by expert physicians who tested thousands and concluded that the lockdown should end soon is inexcusable. It is also a danger to our national economy, social sanity and national security which depends on a strong economy. Then I just saw a W. Post video declaring that the coronavirus could only have come from the wet market, a view repeatedly debunked, its clear youtude perhaps for business reasons is misleading America and our children. In such a case, a monopolist should and probably could be ordered to post opposing medical and tech expert opinions. Remember and I am my incorrect, Google owns youtube, Google has large financial connections to China and may willingly control its youtube postings to please China. China is well known for its bullying tactics.