If Private Platforms Use Government Guidelines to Police Content, is that State Censorship? – by Matt Taibbi – TK News by Matt Taibbi
As has been noted in this space multiple times, this is a common theme in nearly all of these stories, but Weinstein s tale is at once weirder and more involved, as most people in these dilemmas never get past the form-letter response stage. YouTube has responded throughout to media queries about Weinstein s case, suggesting they take it seriously.
YouTube s decision with regard to Weinstein and Heying seems part of an overall butterfly effect, as numerous other figures either connected to the topic or to DarkHorse have been censured by various platforms. Weinstein guest Dr. Robert Malone, a former Salk Institute researcher often credited with helping develop mRNA vaccine technology, has been suspended from LinkedIn, and Weinstein guest Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has had his appearances removed by YouTube. Even Satoshi Lmura, who won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for his work on ivermectin, reportedly had a video removed by YouTube this week.
There are several factors that make the DarkHorse incident different from other major Silicon Valley moderation decisions, including the fact that the content in question doesn t involve electoral politics, foreign intervention, or incitement. The main issue is the possible blurring of lines between public and private censorship.
I linked to this substack post of Matt Taibbi’s earlier, so this is ICYMI.
This whole question of whether YouTube is acting in the role of public censor is a serious constitutional question and I’m sure that the federal courts, and I bet ultimately the Supreme Court, will treat it as such. But I guess we’ll see.