Now a counterpoint: we banned government censorship for a good reason(or tried to).
Why would a private 3rd party be allowed to do so? especially if government can heavily incentivize the 3rd party(using either stick and/or carrot) to be basically outsourced censorship office? Why do we give power of censorship to private entities that can shape public opinion in a way that brings them the most profit?
you can fix former issue by education and culture shift - censorship is just a bandaid.
Censorship by private parties is only a problem when they are allowed to be a monopoly in that market segment. If we had hundreds of viable and independent youtube sites and hundreds of viable and independent social networks around the world private censorship wouldn't be much of a problem at all, you just take your junk to whoever accepts it, be it from a jurisdiction point o view or from a policy point of view. If none of them accepts you, you likely need to spend a long time reflecting upon yourself... or try creating your own service (which has a much bigger chance of staying afloat on such fair market) that accepts your junk.
Bandages are very common, even at hospitals. The solution isn't just to pretend nothing's wrong until the patient bleeds to death. There's other steps here too, I continue to advocate for education and culture shift. I've spoken specifically to both the public and lawmakers about the importance of inclusion. The work isn't done.
Don't get me wrong, YouTube is deeply flawed in its implementation of moderation. The website is borderline unsupervised when it comes to human beings, and the algorithm/AI has been very destructive. That's not the fault of rules as a concept though. There are so many rules, which in theory, I'm prepared to defend even if they aren't working in practice. Does it suck when I'm falsely accused of violating copyright? Yes. Would it also suck to have no recourse if my work got stolen? Absolutely. Could they allow adult imagery and I just filter it out on my end? Yes. Is it a huge overreach that they don't allow child pornography? No. The line does have to be drawn somewhere.
I've just seen too much abuse stemming from censorship, including second hand accounts(From friends and family) of people getting dissapeared due to it.
as soon as you propose me a system that will stop such abuse and have censorship i'll concede.
but for now it seems like moderating free speech(which in itself is already an ironical statement) is just marginalizing groups which have genuine concerns - and push them further and further to the extremes. It's like sweeping problems under the rug, and you lose all the signals of problems in soceity as a policymaker.
Why would a private 3rd party be allowed to do so? especially if government can heavily incentivize the 3rd party(using either stick and/or carrot) to be basically outsourced censorship office? Why do we give power of censorship to private entities that can shape public opinion in a way that brings them the most profit?
you can fix former issue by education and culture shift - censorship is just a bandaid.