James Charles, a very popular individual on Twitter, has been cancelled about 5 times. Guess what? They're still there. That's because "Cancel Culture" is largely made up by talking heads. Very few people actually get "cancelled", and when they do, it's not because of posts on Twitter by themselves.
Youtube houses plenty of conspirators, right wing news, gun channels, and they're monetized. Not only that, but youtube comment sections are notorious for being inline with "conservative" views.
Some gun channels have been demonitized. Not because Youtube doesn't want the money, but because Google doesn't control what advertisers do. In one of the demonitization dramas it was revelead that Youtube as a company would stop generating revenue if a big advertiser like Pepsi or Disney stopped doing business with Youtube.
If you want to see "cancelling" how about the crowds of hate that target minority groups with significant harassment? Why is online canceling from Twitter talked about, but not actual real life militia groups and violent groups that gather to kill transgender individuals? One of those actually harms people.
Do you see these "cancellers" showing up to city council meetings, forming actual physical protests? Nope. Everyone is actually quite free to ignore it. The only time things change is when those in positions of power decide to change it. They make those changes not on the outrage on Twitter, but on their own personal beliefs on whom they want to do business with.
Ontop of this, "cancel culture" can be translated to "protest culture". Somehow critisizing and stopping business with people is "cancelling", and not "protest" now?
>No tech company should be enforcing their Terms of Service based on what they think their users have done or might do off of their own platforms. Yet Twitter, Facebook, Patreon and who knows who else do that.
Reworded: No individual should be enforcing their morals based on what they think someone has done or might do when not next to them.
These "I should be able to say anything I want on someone elses platform" is uniquely american privledge talking. If Youtube, or Twitter, or Facebook allowed whatever people want, guess what? They'd be regulated tomorrow to not allow it. Words actually do have harm, and words do not inherently have 1st ammendment protections.
There are already plenty of misinformed people whom want a "repeal of 230". These companies have both a moral and financial responsibility to enforce their terms of service.
>A mailer company like Mailchimp has no business even parsing the content of their paying clients, let alone summarily judging whether it is misinformation or not. Mail providers should care about two things and two things only:
Yes, they do. They have to parse them for illegal content, and then they have to parse for content that might have their services used in ways that harm others. Disinformation can easily be harmful, and a company like Mailchimp does not want to be implicated in it regardless of 230 protections or not.