Ok, so now a video is up and people are tricked by it and injure themselves in the process. Some people die. Is that an acceptable cost? Does your solution make any considerations for ongoing harm?
Sure, we can have tools to reduce risk - maybe there can be a warning under the video that the contents are disputed and some people claimed harm. If those people are lying the video uploader can sue them.
Just because some people don't know how to behave and have delusions that nothing is real on the internet, we can't have total speech control in an attempt of "saving the kids".
Just as with the real world, people need to develop the right habits to stay safe.
Just as with the real world, you don't have a right to a broadcasting platform for anything you wish.
Actually, only on extremely crazy dictatorships you will have police storming you before you finish your broadcast. On most places, you can be sued but the police wont try to silence you as if your words are a spell.
Companies don't have a fair due process. Google is infamous for not providing a human response for their algorithmic censorship. You can Google it.
Things harmful for the platforms itself? Removing stuff like spam is fair IMHO.
People forget even TV had public access, which could get pretty ridiculous back in the day.
Your argument is old, tired, and nonsensical.
As with newspapers, magazines, radio, social media platforms, etc., the owners public access tv stations are allowed to exercise editorial discretion with regards to what they publish. There was actually a landmark Supreme Court case about it:[0]
[0]https://www.commlawblog.com/2019/06/articles/broadcast/supre...
In free countries you just broadcast. It's like the right to eat pancakes, it's not specifically regulated. Of course there are rules of what you are allowed to do or not, for example you can't broadcast in specific frequencies because those are licensed and if you like to do that you need to purchase a license. If you broadcast using loudspeakers, you will have regulations on the loudness of it.
The commercial license might come with its own limitations. Depending on your location, you might get into trouble if you take advertisements for drugs or cigarettes or alcohol. You can lose your license over it but your broadcasting equipment wont try stopping you from doing it.
Sure, and anyone who is banned on YouTube can still "just broadcast". Their rights were not harmed in any way.
To borrow your analogy, you may have the right to eat pancakes but you don't have the right to eat at IHOP. You can be banned from every pancake selling diner in town yet you can still eat pancakes. No one has stopped you from eating pancakes.
Again, unlike radio, with internet platforms each platform is in its own reality. With radio, when you broadcast your signal reaches everyone indiscriminately. On the internet you broadcast into platforms as if they are different universes with different populations.
A corpse is discovered in a garage with charred stumps where the hands should be. Investigators look through that person's browser history and find they watched a few hundred wood burning videos. What now, hundreds of lawsuits? Who would pay for that?
You talk as if this isn't exactly what happened in the current framework of private censorship.
Even if abolishing private censorship would cause the scenario you outlined, that wouldn't be worse than the current situation and at least you'd solve the problem of pointless censorship.
This seems like a statement with nothing behind it but your confidence that it is truth. I believe that could be much worse than the current situation.
If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video. Sure, you can put labels agains poor judgement like they do on physical products.
It might not be 'the' fix but it could be 'a' fix. If your interest is preventing deaths that is.
The point is, for "a fix" of an issue we are trading things and I don't find it a good trade. Total unchallenged censorship is ot a good compromise to "save the kids".
Isn't it the case that the dangerous video was left up while the criticism was removed?
> How was the censorship pointless?
I'm talking specifically about private censorship.