But - it’s their platform. We aren’t talking about the government taking down content, are we?
Isn’t the free market response simply to not use google if you don’t like the way they do business?
And why would they gain control of all web hosting? Is that a thing? Is this dovetailing with net neutrality somehow?
You're missing a couple of things here.
First of all, Facebook and Twitter have a disproportionately huge control over the flow of information. It's probably not hyperbole to say that the majority of news in our country is disseminated through those platforms. So while what they are doing may not meet the constitutional definition of censorship, it certainly meets the practical definition.
Secondly (and I'm surprised this hasn't been brought into the conversation yet), there is Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act which shields these platforms from liability from certain lawsuits as long as they are an
open platform. Basically, that section gives them the choice to declare themselves as a publisher or a platform. If it's the former, they are liable for the views they allowed published but have a lot more control over the content ... e.g., like the NY Times. If you are a platform however, you can't be held liable, but you have a greater responsibility to allow all viewpoints and content, with a few exceptions. Doctors discussing the effectiveness of HCQ on patients to whom they've prescribed it comes nowhere close to any of those exceptions. Meanwhile, Twitter allows the ayatollahs of Iran to call for genocide against Israel - in what universe is that ok but talking about potential benefits of HCQ not? (sorry mods if that veers to close to politics - you can strike that sentence if it steps over the line).
Either way, alleged "platforms" like Twitter and Facebook are trying to have it both ways, the benefits of liability shields that come with being a platform, the content control that comes with being a publisher. If they are going to behave as a publisher, they should have their liability shield revoked.
As for Google, they are a monopoly, they don't just control the majority of search, they control the majority of online advertising (which gives them control of the former). You can talk about free market alternatives all you want, but when you have a monopoly, you don't have a free market. And by controlling search, they have an incredible amount of control over what information flows through the internet. They need to be broken up or highly regulated.
Back to the HCQ, it is ridiculous that people will rush to censor a simple video of some doctors discussing the drug and the effects in treating patients, i.e. first hand observations, and then somehow label that information as dangerous. It's not as if you can just go buy the drug over the counter, and it's not as if there is a black market for people to get high of the drug as if it's the next oxycontin or something. It's an old, relatively safe, and cheap drug that has been widely prescribed for decades.
A critical thinker will ask why there is so much effort to censor the information flow about HCQ and punish the purveyors of the same, because at this point it's obvious that the reasons are not medical in nature.
www.techdirt.com
reason.com
