[cambalache]

> even if it was true, who cares?

So what did you ban them in the first time?

> The goal of effective policy is to isolate radical elements to a point where they can't target mainstream communities of people who hold malleable beliefs. That is effective prevention.

Let's say I think Google is a threat to individual rights. Are their on their right to prevent people with "malleable beliefs"(how condescending) to listen to that message? Is that what you want? A corporate-controlled Internet and society? If you think they are free to go elsewhere you must know that the natural direction in unfettered capitalism is that the winners accumulate more and more in bigger conglomerates. That is an extremely dangerous game, courting a fascist society, in the original meaning of the term.

[jb_gericke]

As opposed to? Government controlled or moderated media would be devoid of agenda? I also don't see how capitalism is to blame, we are already seeing new social media platforms emerge pandering to the other side of the partisan spectrum. At the end of the day, YouTube and their ilk have executive decision making over the content they surface. I don't believe they should be beholden to some 'higher' journalistic ideals around objectivity. As a consumer if I'm not happy with their policies (extending well beyond content moderation), I'm obliged to go elsewhere. Whether this drives further polarisation or results in the creation of fringe or radicalised groups is actually besides the point.