I agree with you about government censorship.
The govt didn’t censor her though. Private companies removed content from their platform. I am opposed to the fairness doctrine, whether it’s on TV, radio or social media. I do not think private companies should be forced to present content they do not agree with on their platform, especially if they believe that content is false or could hurt someone. Like rivals could delete my posts here, so can other companies on their sites. If I don’t like it, I go somewhere else. That’s not censorship or tyranny.
You don’t debate drug efficacy on social media. You present your data in publications that others can reproduce and you get a drug company that makes HCQ to apply for its use in Covid19 patients and presents your data to support its safety and effectiveness. I am skeptical of any person who says they have a drug that works, but data doesn’t support them and they don’t provide affirmative data for themselves. Going to social media tells me you don’t have real data.
You have a couple of issues I'd like to weigh in on. First up though is your starting to present issues related to all this big mess is much more helpful. Just from knowing you around the message board for a handful of years, I know you have knowledge and experience in the relevant field. I also usually find your input on most topics around here (sports and otherwise) to be informative, interesting, and with which I typically agree with you on a large amount. I say that as someone like yourself that comments on these matters that I actually do contemplate and consider your supporting arguments, reason, and solid reliable evidence. Like many, I'm trying to pick up good info the best I can in these turbulent times when good fact based info and evidence can be found. In short, I can be swayed on these matters with good solid supporting evidence.
Now onto some of the aforementioned topics. I get that private concerns or organizations should generally have a control over their product or services. The problem is that with Big Tech, things are not quite that simple.
Big Tech, the media, and the govt sold us, the American people, that social media was the new town square where all Americans can freely participate with free and open speech as long as that speech does not violate the laws of land, i.e. state & federal laws. As such, the fed govt granted Big Tech a huge carve out, Section 230 I believe it is called, that most other corps, media, and people do not have protection under. The Federal Govt granted the Big Tech firms like Google, Facebook, and Twitter legal protections from lawsuits over info posted onto their social media sites. Big Tech argument was that they are like a town square or a bulletin board that facilitates free speech. They argue that they should not be held liable for content placed on their social media forums as they are not editors such as newspapers or TV & Radio stations. So most of America was all in with open access and free speech for all. Big Tech was protected from any lawsuits on said content. These social media giants ended up making TRILLIONS of $$$$$ with worldwide reach and influence.
Then 2016 happened. Trump, a political establishment outsider won the Presidency with his use of social media engaging grass roots people as a mechanism for getting to office. I don't think I have to tell you that the Big Tech executives that give millions of $$ to establishment DC and the Hillary campaign were embarrassed that they let their DC friends down. Immediately after the election, they started vowing that this would never happen again in America. Videos can still be of some of these statements if you look online hard enough. The famous one was the video of all the top Google execs in a meeting with all their top management crying that they lost the election and would not allow it to happen again. You may remember that.
Within a year or so, the censorship of grassroots voices, pro-Trump people, and generally anyone anti-DC Establishment began. I saw it first hand as I try to gather my news info from a variety of sources and am hesitant to trust just one source. Since then, the censorship has accelerated. On any given day, people I know or follow on social media disappear. They are banned, removed, and thrown into the memory hole along with all of the content that they had placed on social media, particularly YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. Some who placed hundreds are even thousands of hours of work content onto these platforms. To these people, this erasing or destroying of all their informational content is tantamount to burning of their books.
These Big Tech behemoths promised free and open access that was unedited as long as said content did not break the law. Well, they no longer abide by that standard, yet the law is still in place preventing people from any legal recourse or due process. As I'm sure you see without my long winded rambling that these Social Media giants stopped following the rules they established after they convinced, encouraged, or promoted all people to freely utilize their social media services and established themselves as worldwide power players essentially controlling information. In my opinion, they stopped playing by the rules once they became monopolies.
My point is that if these Big Tech giants want to censor people on their platforms, then they should no longer be afforded protection by the Federal govt preventing people from legal recourse. If they were to start being sued by countless people for mistreatment, slander, lack of due process, etc etc, etc, for hundreds of millions of $$$ each along with the bad press, they just might start to think twice before censoring people.
Enter COVID and the contentious political environment. Now the same Big Tech are censoring doctors that are speaking openly about their opinion of a 60+ year old generic medicine that up to this time had not been controversial. Then throw in DC Established figures and media maligning and even smearing these doctors to go along with these doctors starting to be fired from their jobs, yet none of this is happening to the doctors or experts that maintain the governments stance of the DC Establishment's stance.
Regardless of what you may think of HCQ or Trump, certainly you could see this as an alarming set of actions if not downright dangerous. Today it might not get your attention that much because you happen to agree with the govt's and Establishment's stated position. What happens if next month or next week it's an issue that you believe that science points you in a contrary direction of the govt? Would you want to be censored, silenced, or even smeared because you disagreed? It may not directly be the govt censoring you, but that is exactly what is happening across the media informational spectrum for disagreeing with the govt's position.