YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

This really comes down to whether or not all ideas should be _promoted_ equally. Do we think all ideas–even if they are demonstrably untrue-deserve to be boosted to the same level of provable truths.

Should they all be promoted equally and considered equally and taught equally, forever? Do we allow demonstrably false claims to remain at the top to be treated equally, forever? To forever waste time? Every single provable untruth? Millions of them? Forever?

I personally see no problem with demoting ideas which have been considered already. I however would have a problem if these peddlers of demonstrably untrue ideas couldn’t easily go set up their own websites or print on their own paper.

This is why I’m not running around flapping my arms dancing in a panic circle. At this point, people can still:

- easily make their own websites at a cost which is a tiny fraction compared to history

- ideas can still printed and pushed the same as they always could through print

- people can still stand on a corner and yelp out whatever ideas just as they always could.

This is really about how much promotion into consideration these ideas deserve and for how long. How much of our very limited time/energy reserves do every idea get?

Just some food for thought. If youtube was around in the past and doing this stuff they could have deleted videos in support of the following: (these all started as fringe beliefs(1))

Interracial marriage

Gay marriage

Smoking causes lung cancer

(1) interesting topical read and it has sources for these at the end https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html

That's just not true though. In the US the rights of property trumps the rights of Freedom of Speech in 99% of cases.

If someone puts up a cardboard box on my property and begins a speech, I have the right to kick them off of my property. We have 'Free Speech Zones' which we kick protesters into so that their exertion of their rights doesn't bother other people. We have cases of senators getting people arrested solely because they laughed at them.

And that's ignoring our long history of suppressing people based on their race or origin. Black Americans are the first ones that come to mind, but we treated Italians and Asians as second-class citizens not that long ago as well. We've had this 'freedom of speech' right enshrined but not at all interpreted like people seem to think it was.

> Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the notion that we should try to pick a side to suppress. Because the same part of human nature that leads to rampant spread of disinformation is the part of human nature that tries to decide what the capital-T Truth is.

Yes, we really can't have it both ways. Either we have free speech for everyone, or we have censorship. There are exceptions, of course: calls to violence, libel against non-public people, and so on. And yes, also inciting panic by crying "fire" falsely in public places. But I believe that's distinguishable from spreading "fake news".

The problem with censorship is needing to trust censors. And even if we have honest censors, how do we know what the "truth" is? Do we trust "authorities"? That seems iffy, given how often we've learned that they've been dishonest or just plain wrong.

Also, authoritarians always start with the edge cases. And then they widen the scope. By the time your position -- which always seemed so reasonable -- becomes unacceptable, it's too late.

Fascistic/authoritarian control of platforms is not compatible with the principles of free speech that allow our society to be free. Calling for censorship based on any wing, is wrong. People should be allowed to express their views, and platforms which repress that should be avoided.