YouTube is arguing that I shouldn't be able to provide evidence to the contrary, which is the point.
I'm not arguing with the list of bullet points. I'm arguing with the very silly implication that there is an obvious "truth" that some MegaCorp should be able to hand down and enforce on this.
Correct. But it's tantamount to saying "you can't speak in this public square, how about you pretend your front yard is a public square and speak there."
Eventually, people are going to say the hell with that and that Google's "private" management of 90% of inbound searches and content is, in fact, public.
After that, maybe we can start calling it Gov-gle or something once it's nationalized.
Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily.
Welp. Time to get rid of Section 230 then!
Apparently these companies aren't neutral carriers and should be held liable for what they censor in their editorial discretion.
There couldn't possibly be other dissenting views on that. It's _true_ my friends.
Vox is clearly an impartial observer. The Senate hearings which led to impeachment hearings on Trump (because he investigated Hunter Biden, who has been under FBI investigation for over a year now... a materially true fact) could not _possibly_ have been politically motivated.
Shutting down speech does not lead to "facts" or "truth", it leads to uncertainty. YouTube is basically the Catholic church, claiming they know the facts, they know the truth, and Galileo is spouting nonsense.
If you're so confident, then let those people speak and use arguments (even your ludicrous wall of links) against them. That's rational and dare I say it, scientific.