It's sad that people believe this sort of nonsense. If you look honestly at the phenomenon of school shootings, you see that it has far more to do with the internet than it does with guns, but the official narrative blames it entirely on guns. And now, we're looking at a phenomenon of profoundly extreme ignorance, but rather than look at our broken education systems, the official narrative is to blame insufficient censorship of the internet.

Referring to a monolithic entity like Google as a "private company" strikes me as fairly misleading and/or naive.

Isn't this a "circular logic"? Like you say that government shouldn't interfere with Google, because "private company has the right to make those decisions". And private company should have the right to make those dicisions, because government can't interfere private company policies.

But why should private companies be free to censor whatever they want in the first place?

So, when you lose your job because you were falsely accused of being racist/rapist/nazi/whatever, isn't harm?

I think, you got it all backwards. It's nanny Google that comes and stops people you disagree with. (Like the ones try to prove that they are not nazi/rapist/etc.) And government regulation is supposed to stop that.

I agree with your point regarding education (as paradoxical as it may seem after you having condensed my entire argument and described it as nonsense), but putting the blame on education alone is, in my opinion, an incomplete argument to make (it's fair enough to mention that mine wasn't either but I was focused on mass media regulations rather than mass media literacy, which is a much more complex issue to tackle).

Taking that into account, education is of course a part of the equation but denying the medium's influence on the message (if you're well read in communication theory you'll probably remember/know the famous McLuhan phrase "The medium is the message") is not a wise and broad train of thought. Also, when talking about 'our broken education systems' I wonder to which one are you referring to? There're plenty to choose from, assuming your country's is the same everywhere would be a fallacy of composition we should be trying to avoid if our aim is to have an enriching debate.

As I said hinted before, it's easier, cheaper, and more immediate to control the medium than it is to make everyone in the world media literate and educated (and just to clarify, I'm not saying the later is not a feat that shouldn't be pursued or achieved). Regulations are put in place for several reasons, some of them can even create a positive framework of law and civility which make our societies arguably better. We need to consider how the global media are designed and what could that design could potentially accomplish in terms of communication (some countries forbid spirits and tobacco ads in radio and tv broadcasts). In my opinion, it's not reasonable that any global mass media is allowed to host and promote hate, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, violence, etc. Censoring those messages isn't a matter of free speech, it's a matter of common sense (and for corporations is also a matter of money and not being fined). The incredible power of influence these companies have is unprecedented, giving them free reign and betting on individual intellect and education just seems a bit naive to me.

On that note and to conclude, my country isn't one of the best ones (by "a long shot") in any educational ranking, but guns are outlawed with the exception of hunting purposes (which require a license). Thankfully, we have never had any school shooting. Sure, correlation doesn't imply causation but is it so far fetched to assume that because we regulate according to potentially harmful situations those situations never happen? Or is this because we are more educated than others despite global educational indexes pointing out the contrary?

I think I've made my point on why censorship isn't bad 'per se', why mass media need to censor themselves because they're designed in a certain way, and why governments should regulate them and hold them accountable for the content they promote. The extent of the censorship is something we should keep an eye out for, but we should also be really wary for some of the outspoken defenders of free speech, are the most interested in using it for propaganda, mindlessness social outrage and mass manipulation.

Is it? From what I've seen so far the problem is exactly that the populace isn't taught to do research or even excercise critical thinking. And that's exactly why even a tiny grain of controversial ideology finds a fertile soil. Simplly because people used to someone else filtering information for them. And since uneducated (and unwilling to become educated) people become such an easy prey for radicalisation, you have to shut down every single source - be it a channel on youtube, some website, or even a person in a chat in some game. EVERY SINGLE SOURCE - I think it's much more costly than to teach sizable percentage of people (you don't even need 100% coverage) to actually think for themselves and check facts before joining some mob.

I am both vegan and a big fan of BBQ meats

I didn't, and don't, put the entire blame on education alone; in fact, I'd say it's just another symptom of a much larger problem, corrupt leadership. Elites have never wanted a truly educated populace, just as plantation owners didn't want educated slaves. Slavery wasn't abolished. It merely evolved, into something that is much more insidious because most of us don't perceive it. A truly educated populace would be antithetical to this arrangement, so what we have is social conditioning dressed up as "education", and the end result is polarized societies that are degenerating into chaos, and our "leaders" use this as a pretext to further restrict our liberties and spy on us.

My point is that censorship will only serve to treat symptoms -- much like our broken "healthcare" systems, and will do nothing to address the corruption that is destroying this world.

to be fair, some of that fake meat is canny nice with a bit of sauce

So is shoe leather. lol

Sorry, I lost your trail of thought in all those analogies. Are you saying that BBQ meat (white people) are fake? Or that racism is fake? Or is "fake meat" mean soy-boys?

anyways back on topic recently there was a news article on malwartips stating what many people like me belive, the all AI devices from google record your voices, what they do with them nobody knows apart from google, but u can be sure as hell il never use an big corprations hardware that records people

1. Imo corporations shouldn't be able to do what they want just because of capitalism/etc and such principles.....everything needs checks and balances as humans are fallible/prone to corruption & I don't see why businesses should get a free pass in that regard.

Also for some curtailing free speech on nearly monopolized platforms online to some is a form of harm.

2. There is a difference between outrage mobs getting stuff forced on others through law and wanting free speech for all. Or are you one of those who thinks that businesses should have more rights than individuals?

It would seem like SV is trying to make them out to be a mom and pop store being bullied by people to do what they want because they dislike the mom and pop, whereas it's actually a large public company used by many that is trying to shape the world via it's set of beliefs while curtailing speech to do so.

1. It is a matter of free speech, and here in the US that's what it was designed for/to protect: Unpopular/"wrong" speech.....as it isn't accepted/acceptable speech that would need protecting, but that which others find disagreeable.

Also they wouldn't get fined now for such in most cases as they enjoy various benefits/loopholes which keep them from being sued/fined for such talk by others on their sites, and they LOVE the censorship as it allows them to shape narratives as to what they believe in/find acceptable and to me that's just wrong.

Take, for example, this: What if such sites determined anyone who ate meat was bad and banned talking about meat eating/hunting(for food)/meat recipes. Would that be acceptable or should people be allowed to talk about such without fear of corporate censorship?

2. Who knows. I DO know that some countries that have banned guns entirely have larger amounts of knife/acid/etc crime, as a result, though. Also in such countries guns can still be gotten or made by skilled or smart people, as shown by raids against such finding such weapons.

3. This is all fair, but I would rather have a free public square online where all(except threats and doxxing, etc) is allowed rather than banning what the current majority finds distasteful at the moment.

He was saying that google being pro-racist and pro-sjw is as paradoxical/at odds as saying one is pro vegan and pro meat eating.

I like that you guys think giving the government power to control what a private company can have on their platform is some kind of fight for freedom. I wonder if you'll feel the same when someone completely different is running said government, with their own ideas about what Google should or should not allow.

If the company is limiting people's freedom or doing some sort of "evil" and won't fix it themselves then sometimes other people have to tell them what to do. This isn't people ganging up on small business owners btw but people pissed at huge corporations who only care about their next buck and no one else.

Also what you state won't happen if the law allows free speech period(except threats/illegal stuff) on such sites & no one changes it.