Isn't it obvious that (2) in practice entirely negates (1)?
In Australia we recently had a proposed law to prohibit information that "potentially undermines faith in the banking sector" regardless of truthfulness.
It's forbidden to kill people. But if you are defending yourself it's not. And if you're a soldier you are indeed required to kill.
It's forbidden to break other people's property - but if you're trying to save somebody's life you can break a window to get to them.
It's illegal to capture and keep people imprisoned. But state can put you in prison no problem.
Etc.
Freedom of speech was never intended to be the only fundamental rule of the society. It's one of many. Being fundamentalist about it is harmful.
In particular what is harmful is abusing it to circumvent other, reasonable rules. In USA the reason oligarchs can pay politicians for their campaigns is because it's classified as "free speech". This is corruption on the highest level of the state legalized with idiotic excuse. It's illegal in most democracies, and for a good reason.
Another example is spreading hate campaigns against minorities. We know what happens if you allow this to go on. We've seen 1930s. We have laws against it - but only for traditional media. Internet is a way to circumvent these rules and good practices.
Just like radio was a way for to-be-totalitarian-rulers to circumvent the establishment in 20s and 30s.
I haven't seen anyone here claiming that freedom of speech is the only fundamental rule of society.
It is an extremely important one though, there's a reason the US founders listed it first.
What often gets missed or misunderstood is who our speech is protected from. It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts. The government isn't supposed to limit our speech in any way, YouTube can limit all it wants unless it treads into gray area where the limits were specifically requested by the government.
> It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts
If there is a monopoly - what the monopoly owner restricts matters just as much as what the government restricts. More in fact - because youtube has more influence over what people watch than any single government.
These monopolies should be broken up, obviously - but internet is the perfect example of network effects and there's no regulation - so of course it's monopolized to a degree unimaginable before.
Governments should break up such monopolies, obviously - but they aren't, so far.
If YouTube is legally a monopoly that's a separate issue that already has defined legal solutions (well, responses at least since they may not solve it).
Considering it a monopoly and putting a higher bar to their moderation policies takes away agency from the public though. We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market. If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere.
The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option. Those with the means could move to another country, but that would only dodge one problem for another. When you live in a country ruled by a single government you can't escape their censorship.
> We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market.
There is - network effect.
> If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere.
They would not, because of network effects. Coordination effort required to jump ship from a billion user website is impossible to overcome. You could have all of Americans stop using youtube, and it would still have more content than whatever competitor they turn towards.
> The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option.
There's more examples of people overthrowing a government than people succesfully boycotting a social media platform once it gets big enough.
You're conflating the risk of a monopoly in a market and the absolute monopoly of a government.
I'm not arguing why people choose to use YouTube, I'm arguing that it is a choice. Staying in a country is technically a choice, but as long as you live there you have no choice in your government and can't opt out of their rule.
Its very different. Our speech is protected specifically from government censorship because their control over us is a monopoly by design and their will is enforced through mechanisms like prison and military.
You can move countries, I've done it myself. You can't escape the control of whatever single government claims authority over the land you live on though, and you likely can't/won't move to land that isn't claimed by a single government.
YouTube can censor what they want, you don't have to use it and they can't send police or military after you. You can't move to a land where a single government has control and can send police or military to impose their will on you.
Who controls the media - controls the population. Who controls the population controls the government.
Every democracy will become oligarchy eventually if we don't regulate social media. Most of them won't even be controlled domestically (because the media are global).
There's like 50 people who decide 99% of information people consume worldwide. Or at least what algorithm should decide.
These people know what power it gives. That's why it was worth it for Elon to buy Twitter. It was trading money for political power. And there's nothing anybody can do. This IS oligarchy.
I wonder would it be possible to prosecute bankers under such a law. Is it strictly information, or could you consider actions which undermine faith in the banking sector?
Even the US has such restrictions: Grand jury proceeding, classified information, contempt of court (Trump almost hit that last year), lying under oath, material nonpublic information about publicly traded companies (Musk), copyright infringement, …
Is "Obscenity" still a thing? I guess some porn must be illegal…
And conversely, North Korea has a constitution that says they also support free speech*. So, you know, look to de facto not just de jure.
* """Article 65 provides that all North Korean citizens have equal rights.[15] Citizens have the right to elect and be elected (Article 66), freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association (Article 67),""" -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea#Ch...
In Australia we recently had a proposed law to prohibit information that "potentially undermines faith in the banking sector" regardless of truthfulness.