Currently, these social media giants can't be sued for published content, unlike mainstream media can. But when they act as editors of the content, the Section 230 shouldn't apply anymore, so the argument goes.
This is 100% as it should be.
(IFF) any website is "playing editor" (censoring content) (THEN) that website is legally responsible for ALL content on their website.
(IFF) people start getting kicked off the yo.utubz and the fa.cebox left and right (THEN) THEY SHOULD JOIN A CENSORSHIP FREE COMMUNITY (with user controlled view settings).
Let them join bitchute, LBRY, and hopefully hive.
These behemoths have been editing content just like a newspaper, but dodging legal challenges by claiming they don't censor anyone (but they obviously do).
You can't have it both ways.
(EITHER) you edit content (OR) you don't.
You can only claim "I'm not responsible for user generated content" if you DON'T CENSOR (EDIT) CONTENT.
Bitchute is just as bad as YouTube for censorship, shadowbanning, and manipulating searches. LBRY is the real deal (so far) though.
Good to know!
Bitchute is gaining users because it looks and acts like YouTube... nothing new to learn.
LBRY does things a little differently. There's no corporation involved, for one thing. Everybody retains ownership and control of their content. It's not as easy to switch to, but it's worth it.
I've been shadowbanned on Bitchute since I started there. I have 100+ documentaries and videos there, but only 30 subscribers, including all the subscribers who followed me from YouTube (9000) and other platforms. 30, after months of daily uploads? My stuff isn't THAT bad! : P
(For comparison, on LBRY I have 500 subscribers in the same amount of time.)
Nice.