Glenn Greenwald: Big Tech is censoring Covid debate
youtube.comThough it would be difficult to prove damages, holding tech companies liable for any harm done that could have been avoided if information they suppressed were allowed to have been communicated will set off some alarms in their legal and risk departments. There is much we still do not know about COVID19, the vaccines, and alternative treatments. It is almost certain that some of what we now believe to be true will ultimately be proven to be incorrect. There are many conflicting studies going around and tech companies have decided which ones are truth and which ones are not. Since they have appointed themselves as the arbiters of truth, they should be held liable for any "truth" they get wrong. If they do not want this liability, then they must refrain from deciding what medical information is correct and what should be suppressed. No hiding behind medical authorities as there are multiple conflicting medical authorities and tech companies have decided which ones they bless as truthsayers and which ones they have derided as falsifiers. There is no way for them to avoid making choices once they get themselves involved in the business of censorship and suppression. Their choices, their consequences.
Or they can be conduits and avoid this risk entirely.
This.
It's not "censorship" because it's private property, right?
It's not a First Amendment issue, and it's not state censorship, but it is censorship.
Edit: This quote though seems to be wrong: What competency do tech giants have to arbitrate over science and health policy? … How did they get into a position of some sort of philosopher-king to be able to sit in judgement as overlords of our discourse So yeah, clearly each platform has control over what is acceptable to say on the platform. Encouraging free speech is important, but that takes work. Rule with an iron fist is the default for any platform, even blog comments.
Defining the suppression of discussion on COVID as acts of censorship has nothing to do with the private nature of the platforms. It is legal, but it is still censorship.
May someone explain what they are actually "censoring"?
For example, useful debate around hydroxychloroquine. The studies continue proving that it is an effective treatment https://c19rmd.com/ and even the American Medical Association is considering changing their posture around it.
Sadly, the drug has been highly politicized and all positive discussion around it was banned from YouTube. The OAN channel in YT was banned for talking about it: https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-youtube/yo...
There are many other instances of YouTube censoring discussion that results in a harmful effect to society. For example, most popular channels posting riot videos were demonetized.
Essentially anything that deviates from WHO guidelines, that is to say conventional wisdom and orthodoxy...