"Just because we have freedom of speech, doesn't mean that you can say literally anything"<br><br>Oh sure, on top of libel laws there are social consequences; the question is whether or not a corporation can accurately reflect societal values in its "consequences".<br><br>For example, guns are perfectly legal according to the 2nd amendment, yet YouTube suppresses channels that educate about firearms.,(reply>), @Captain1nsaneo "private companies arent above the law" is this really true? cause i know a site called twitch tv which was apparently made for "gaming" but its right now a hot market for cam girls &amp; female streamers who stream sexually suggestive content, not that you shouldnt stream that, but its not what the site is for, its TOS says streaming any sort of nudity is not allowed, and this site in many cases has repeatedly banned male streamers while unfairly giving a pass for streamers who stream sexual content,(reply>), @Jean-Romain Roy I actually would not have a problem with Youtube or Twitter using their right to be selective in which content they may allow on their private platforms, or which voices they deem not to promote. I just would prefer them being honest and open about it, and not do it behind the scenes.,(reply>), @Captain1nsaneo Thank you for your response, especially n.1. I didn't know the legal backstory.,(reply>), @OutOfNamesToChoose From what I've read it's partly an issue where the checkers are hired from. It's buried in the stories about Youtube's content moderators and the ptsd like symptoms they gain from looking at so much legitimate horror and abuse. But I'd also point to how Google's been shown to censor their search results in favor of political candidates as being of concern. I live near the SF bay area and there's an activist culture here that I could easily see wanting to misuse censorship tools. Other companies have leveraged their histories and goodwill to hire at below market rates for the opportunity to work there (Blizzard), similarly I could envision an activist taking a lower paying job if it got them close enough to power to affect change.<br>As far as groups working to get agents into positions of control it's happened in the past; specifically thinking of Scientology's Operation Snow White which remains the largest known infiltration of the US gov to date. <br>Building a robust system that defends against majority tyranny is a hard problem. Especially so in a structured company that's struggling to be in the black as Youtube is. I was honestly surprised to hear that they'd recently managed to break even, I was figuring that Youtube was still being subsidized by Google in trade for the smorgasbord of information it provides.,(reply>), @Captain1nsaneo    Agreed. You've also brought up a very interesting point regarding the potential for moderators to be compromised or replaced with agents. <br><br>As you also mentioned, the dilemma facing Silicon Valley companies is that they want their cake and to eat it too, with regards to controlling content as publishers, yet denying legal responsibility for illegal content posted on the platform. YouTube has so far used its algorithm as a scapegoat for being the publishers of such content, yet human input/bias from engineers at YouTube have told the algorithm what to look for when sorting data.