Some people call #YouTube demonetizing certain vidoes an impediment to freedom of speech. This is not the case. #FreedomOfSpeech means you can say whatever you want and *not* go to jail because of your political stance. It doesn't mean people still have to do business with you or allow you on their property. Your videos are still on YT, unless you're doing something that is unlawful or against CoC. Also - YT is a privately owned place and their "security" can kick you out for any or no reason.
@frankie @unfa You’ve addressed this in terms of 1 specific legal implementation of #freeSpeech: #1A (US Constitution 1st amendment). But in the platforming/deplatforming context the impediment is to free speech principles not a legal implementation thereof. It boils down to an #equivocation fallacy: your opponent refers to a body of principles & philosophy & you superimpose the legal definition
@koherecoWatchdog @unfa
I'd argue that it's not an "impediment" at all. Quite the contrary. YouTube's choice of who to associate with is an expression of their 1A rights, the very same rights you have on your property.
The free marketplace of ideas is where this is decided. If people don't like YouTube's moderation decisions, they're free to stop using YouTube's service. If enough people do that, it hurts YouTube's bottom line, and they're forced to change or die.
@LouisIngenthron @unfa The principle of free speech relies on a “marketplace” of ideas whereby good ideas are carried further and bad ideas fall with unpopularity. A moderator stepping in is counter to that principle as the moderator ensures that the ideas do not get tested by the public.
@koherecoWatchdog That's only true if the moderator is a public official.
If, otoh, they're only moderating a private space, then people's choices whether or not to engage with that space *are* the free marketplace of ideas in action.
Voting with our feet is just another form of speech.
@LouisIngenthron Any moderator can intervene in the practice of free speech principles, public or private. It sounds like you’ve limited the concept of free speech to the US 1st Amendment, which is just one narrow legal implamentation free speech principles -- one that does not fully service the breadth of the principles that originate in ancient Greece.
@koherecoWatchdog My views do happen to align with US 1A jurisprudence, yes. All rights need to be balanced against each other, and I think the balance the US has struck is the best humanity has come up with so far. It could use a few tweaks here and there, but I have yet to hear a reasonable and well-thought-out proposal for any major changes.
@koherecoWatchdog The two are not so separate as you seem to think.
@LouisIngenthron The law may very well be as good as a law can be. That’s not good justification for reducing the rich history and deep philosophical principles of free speech. You don’t take a law and hold that up as being the definition of a body of philosophy. The philosophy is better than the law and it’s an injustice to diminish that.