Even bazaars like 4chan are moderated.
Now, in order to speak, you nearly have to go through one of Their gateways. If you piss off FAMGA (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon), you're gone off the net. Some of those gatekeepers are big scripts with no human intervention for your level. If you fall between the cracks, then you have no recourse, other than find a place like HN and beg publicly - lest you get shitcanned by the HN gatekeepers.
No, you're not. Not even close. The Daily Stormer is still online; you will be too.
Is the promotion of cats a political agenda? Can allcats.com take down videos of dogs?
Sure. Why shouldn't a private entity be able to determine what kind of speech they allow on their own property?
Youtube is a private service, thus they can remove content as they wish. Of course, most forms of historical media have also removed or suppressed controversial content. But in the old days it was preemptive. There was only so much room in a newspaper, you had to own presses and a distribution network, and they didn't hire just any schmoe to write columns.
It was a proactive system of censorship. They got people invested in a career of finding the proper stories and promoting what was acceptable to the establishment. Obviously common people could say whatever they like in their daily lives, but their freedom to put content into a newspaper or television show for all to see was extremely limited.
We have enormous freedom in self-publishing mass media today. So much content is being created that no mortal person can serve as gatekeeper and pick and choose what gets published like a newspaper editor could. So on one hand, we're living in a utopia of free speech. But new ways are being devised to automatically manage content all the time. And even though human moderators don't catch everything, but they slowly do what they can.
There are some genuinely harmful ideas out there, of course. Some things that ought to be restricted. Who gets to decide? Is it right for a private company to choose? I doubt it, but private companies have always been choosing what gets into media. In the past their decisions were much more totalitarian than today.
So why is youtube any different?
Youtube only differs from other websites in scale. They are moderating content as we see fit. We can disagree with their reasoning behind moderation. But it's silly to act like they didn't have this right all along
(And that's what I see in this comment section. Comments like "why should youtube say what I can and can't watch?" I'm pointing out that those arguments are a dead end.)
Where does that leave Alex Jones, then? It's called a slippery slope for a reason.
You seem to be implying that Jones' videos are truthful/informative and totally-not-a-scam, while the videos in the article, which actually contained educational content, were false, misleading, and perpetuating a scam.
Meanwhile, Jones has a supplement business that pulled an estimated $15 mil over two years (some estimate $25 mil) [1]. Here is a sampling of reviews from an independent lab that tested the substances:
- "Both of these products are most likely safe, but ineffective."
- "This product is a waste of money. The claim that 'Anthroplex works synergistically with the powerful Super Male Vitality formula in order to help restore your masculine foundation and stimulate vitality with its own blend of unique ingredients' is fluff on multiple fronts."
- "This product's claims related to 'nascent oxygen' also have no real basis in science."
- "We tested this product on the chance that it might be potassium iodide or sodium iodide, which it wasn't. Survival Shield is just plain iodine."
etc.
This is a guy who "... repeatedly asserted the Sandy Hook shooting was staged and the parents were liars and frauds who helped in a cover-up" [2].
So, what's your definition of false and/or misleading?
[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-in...
[2] https://globalnews.ca/news/4149778/sandy-hook-sue-infowars-c...
EDIT: it seems I misread the intent of the post above mine. My apologies. I'll leave my response up for reference.
My point is to show that these criteria are very hard to apply consistently, particularly when there's money to be made. Alex Jones' channel is alive and well.
I can assure you wholeheartedly that I am implying that Alex Jones videos are squarely in the "false/misleading/perpetuating a scam" camp.
However if the title was "PHP is the best programming language in the world", then the account should be banned, and they should possibly forward the authorities the offenders IP Address so they can get the crazy person on a watch list.