Consider a utilitarian point of view. This is not about grounding people who already went off the deep end, it's about reducing the number of people who get radicalized. I think from that perspective deplatforming radicals is both ethical and effective.

Obviously I would agree if you're talking about Alex Jones. A thing that worries me is when people are banned or videos are removed when the facts in question are in dispute.

I was a very big proponent of wearing mask in the beginning of the pandemic back when the WHO and Dr Fauci had advised against it not because it was true but to manipulate the public for the purpose of preventing a rush on n95 masks.

If I had stated in a video the truth which was that the public was being manipulated to protect the masks, I would have been contradicting WHO and the video could have been banned. That's a problem.

I don't understand why you are being downvoted. People may not agree with the sentiment, but it seems salient and reasonably stated.

Because people who aren’t radicals have been called radicals, and there’s no way that anyone trusts anyone else to decide who is a radical.

It is true, what used to be radical is now becoming normal. Propganda works.

Even before Jones was kicked off, people went to YouTube for insane conspiracy theories and ended up, due to the video recommendation system, still only seeing one side. It really didn't matter whether Jones was on there or his own platform, people watching his videos still only see his (and related) videos.

Sorry about your brother. These platforms are designed for feedback loops. That has nothing to do with free speech or a legal protection to spread libel.

People need to realize that ANY website where a user submits content for is not classified as free speech. A tweet isn’t free speech. A post on Reddit isn’t free speech. These are “articles and or content provided by the public for enhancements to our platform” or whatever EULA legalese they use.

Yeah, like I said, banning a bunch of videos from one genre right now looks bad and people have a right to be upset over it. It’s still YouTube’s legal right to choose which content they want to showcase on their platform.

They hold all the power here. Content creators are at their mercy as far as compensation, views, inclusion in the recommendation engine, etc. then cry foul when the company moves in another direction. Down-leg economics. Specialized businesses based on a supply of value from another business. It’s not a sustainable model for anyone on the 3rd rung.