[weiming]

Except in this case it's not the government, but private corporations taking some kind of political stance.

Google in particular has been very "active," not to forget also: https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-ag... ("video that 'goes against' WHO guidance on the pandemic will be blocked")

[Tepix]

There is a lot of pressure on the large tech companies to stop spreading misinformation. This is one of their measures.

[indymike]

So? That pressure is unconstitutional in the US and should be ignored completely and resisted utterly.

[the-real-jap]

How is it unconstitutional? Google/Youtube is not a neutral carrier and can pick what gets broadcasted - just like Fox or CNN.

For the record: as a paying Podcast Addict user, I think this is a shitty action by Google. I just don't see how it is unconstitutional.

NB. I hope something good comes out of this, like more people discovering and using third party app stores, or being able to run apps on android auto even if google hasn't approved such apps (hello TomTom).

[indymike]

The pressure from the government is unconstitutional.

[moftz]

The govt asking Google to help keep the spread of misinformation down is totally different than the govt forcing Google to do so and arresting anyone that posts anything contrary to the official position.

[indymike]

Freedom of speech doesn't really care if information is correct or incorrect.

[amenod]

So the government-approved information is OK but other information is "misinformation"?

Finding excuses for big tech does not help.

[akimball]

If only they would suppress disinformation issued by governmental sources, I wouldn't be so troubled by this.

[ravenstine]

What is a government but a "corporation" that owns land and takes a political stance? I find Google to be virtually indistinguishable from government besides that it doesn't have a constitution. Even worse is that they have contracts with the US and various governments, making them a political toady.

[tumetab1]

> private corporations taking some kind of political stance.

It's not a political stance, it's a moderation action.

Google, Facebook, etc. are just bad moderators of their platforms.

Selective enforcement of moderations policies is bad moderation. Implementing automated moderation without proper quality control is bad moderation. Implementing automated moderation without proper appeal processes is bad moderation.

The moderation policy is insane, but I think how moderation is done is even more insane.

[freshhawk]

Try posting something either of those companies care about (I don't mean copyrighted stuff that can be automated) and see how fast it gets taken down.

Given that there is selective attention given to different political subjects it is by definition a political stance.