9 ms·
And you are conflating the principle of freedom of speech with the implementation (the 1st Amendment). Many believe that people do indeed have an inherent, natu
by null0pointer 6y ago
And you are conflating the principle of freedom of speech with the implementation (the 1st Amendment). Many believe that people do indeed have an inherent, natural right to not be censored, while also acknowledging that 1A is only partial protection and that companies are free to choose what content they host.
- mike00632 6y agoYes, companies are free to censor content as they should. It's not only a shrewd business decision but it is also good for anyone watching the platform. Censorship is even done to comply with the law, as is the case with child pornography. Censorship is not the inherently bad thing you make it out to be. By saying the word "censorship" as if it's synonymous with "bad" you are piggybacking off the idea that our legal rights are being violated, as if someone is experiencing a tremendous loss because they can't post their specific brand of hate speech on a popular website. The reality is that our rights are not violated and such content has proven to be directly harmful to other people and harmful to YouTube as a brand.