YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

Google News for sure, but non-mainstream YouTube sources (so called independent creators) are collectively more popular than BBC or newspapers. Again, at least in my age group.

The main source would be the website of his own research center https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/en/ (but it's mostly the content in French that's interesting) He had a lengthy interview on French media last week. As far as I'm concerned he got pretty much every part of that epidemic right from the beginning and the facts are now vindicating him.

But that's not really the point anyway. My point is: he went against the WHO and the French government. And at least some people, like me, find value in what he is saying. So who is to judge whether or not he should be allowed to spread his ideas?

I think for argument's sake it's not really about what the government decides is illegal or not, it's that there are some areas of "illegal" that YouTube ignores, while choosing to punish (through demonetization or sometimes deleting accounts) other perfectly legal areas. It's not strictly a free speech argument (at least for me), but the inconsistency deserves to be highlighted.

Consider that snuff films are illegal regardless of their method of distribution- nobody is complaining that YouTube (and every other law-abiding distribution method) censors snuff films and nobody is crying about the First Amendment in this case. Nobody complains because there is a clear legal requirement to prohibit this content, superseding any free speech considerations.

Consider a gray area- filming an activity that might be illegal depending on your location or age, such as smoking marijuana. At a federal level in the USA and in a lot of other countries this is illegal, but it's okay in some areas. YouTube is pretty lax about demonetizing or taking down videos about marijuana. Joe Rogan regularly smokes and promotes weed with guests on his podcast, but there is very little pressure on YouTube to do anything about him.

Consider another scenario for comparison- simply talking about guns on your channel. Following Sandy Hook, YouTube started to demonetize channels that just talked about guns but clearly stayed within the legal bounds and did not promote unsafe or illegal behavior, and some channels have been deleted. YouTube is bowing to outside pressure without any legal requirement. And there is a clear discrepancy in who demonetization gets applied to- promoters of gun control get off scot free, but people that promote legal and responsible gun ownership get demonitized.

YouTube arbitrarily deciding to do something about discussing legally owned guns but nothing about promoting a federally illegal drug is not really the hill I want to die on, but I think it illustrates the inconsistency that frustrates some people. A principled and fair censorship policy should definitely allow the gun conversation to happen if you're going to allow the marijuana conversation to happen, and I think the best way to call this out (without writing the several paragraphs above) is to talk about censoring "illegal" content.

The question I am not seeing addressed in the many, many comments below is: why is there such a large pool of people willing to believe, and act on, ideas like "5G causes COVID-19 symptoms", "vaccines are harmful", anything by Alex Jones, etc?

It is because people are afraid, and because there is a breakdown of trust in Authorities and Experts to tell the truth and keep people safe. Governments and intelligence agencies lied about Iraq and beyond. Large corporations were the only ones saved in 2008. There is a reproducibility crisis in science, which it pays lip service, and lip service only, to solving. Newspapers have become partisan, ad-driven shills. Corporations buy politicians, and together they invent truths as needed to further the bottom line.

This is the context in which people are increasingly skeptical of Authorities. "5G causes coronavirus", I think, like flat-earth belief, is less an actual belief a person could actually have, than an almost symbolic statement of distrust in Experts. The specific belief is completely unfounded, but the feeling behind it is not.

In this context, I fail to see how corporate censorship could possibly be the answer. At the very best, it is a band-aid. The necessary solution is for our institutions to regain their credibility. The first in many steps will be for them to show some humility and acknowledge that they have failed us badly. Until that credibility is re-established, they need to use a softer touch, rather than doubling down on the obviously false idea that their words are the Infallible Truth.

If you read the background for that law, you'll find that people were in fact being injured by vaccines. And some still are. Just as virtually all medicines injure some people. Because there's great variability in responses.

The law didn't get enacted just to prevent lawsuits, but also to compensate those who were injured.

> The implications in your comment are actively harmful to the public health.

That way lies totalitarianism.

For example, there's considerable pressure in many countries to outlaw secure end-to-end encryption. To protect against terrorists, child abusers, and other criminals.

So how would we feel if support for secure end-to-end encryption were censored in social media?