Quote (Black XistenZ @ Mar 3 2019 04:09pm)
I would go even further: if a private business holds a quasi-monopoly, like facebook or youtube do, then they should be subject to stricter rules about which behavior is suspension-worthy. Censorship coming from social media giants and their own political agenda isnt any better than censorship coming from the government.
The internet is a vast network operating as a free market for ideas and has near-unlimited uncensored content at the click of a button. There are little/no barriers of entry to hosting video content online, which is classically associated with Monopolies. Governments try, and mostly fail, to stop the dissemination of content they deem a threat - the failure to censor radical Islamist ideology online is a good example of this.
Why then, can't a competing firm host uncensored content from the likes of Tommy Robinson and Alex Jones and take away the revenue streams Youtube is foregoing by banning their channels? If the demand for their content exists then the free market will enable those channels to be viewed elsewhere and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.