So who decides what is true/accurate? Is this action just related to the current election or will this extend to other "fake news" and elections in other countries? Covid news comes to mind.
On COVID, every country on the planet agrees. The scientists have spoken. The guy who thinks the royal family are lizards should not be considered even remotely reliable.
Or look at the Buck decision, a SCOTUS case that lead to forced sterilization.
Or look at the SCOTUS decision that led to Japanese internment camps.
Oh and both of those decisions .. based on Jacobson. Contrary to what the media tells you, in Jacobson, they never forced him to take the vaccination, only pay the $5 fine. But that decision led to Buck and Manzanar.
It's their platform, their property, they are allowed to do with it as they will. Just like a newspaper doesn't have to print every letter sent in by a reader, or every ad someone wants printed. (This later example is something I have experience with: I was the editor of a college newspaper targeted by a white-supremacist holocaust-denying group that wanted me to print their anti-Semitic ads. I didn't print them)
No one is entitled to the amplification of their views that these platforms make possible. They may be platforms that are publicly accessible, but they are privately owned & operated, and I think it would be a serious blow to the concept of private property to essentially impose forced speech on them.
There are plenty of other platforms that will let someone run anything they want through them. Sure, they're not as big and don't have the audience that Google does, but again: no one is entitled to that Freedom of speech doesn't require anyone to force others to repeat that speech.
that's a relief.
I also think no left-of-center conspiracy theory would be thrown off YouTube, even if it failed in court.
Maybe this is great, I don’t make any value judgment. It’s just a bet. Take my money if I’m wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2016/09/02/maki...