It used to be that the internet perceived censorship as damage and routed around it. Have we been backed into a corner?
Too much of it is under the control of Wealthy Liberal Democrats, same as the Network Television system.
The “corner” is the expectation of objectivity . . . from someone (YouTube in this case) who claims objectivity:The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.The other way to the same result is to refer toThe man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.Again, you can simply reflect that claiming a virtue - any virtue, including objectivity - is arrogant. You cannot know when you are being objective. You can know whether or not you are trying to be objective - but that is a different claim. The ancient Greek Sophists claimed to be wise - and if you argued with that premise, you were ridiculed. The response was the advent of Philosophers - lovers of wisdom, not wise (in their own conceit) men. The philosopher refuses to claim a virtue, but claims to be open to facts and logic. If the philosopher cannot claim objectivity, he must not consider himself “above labels,” as the “No Labels” bunch had it. Thus, you could in principle openly be a socialist and be a philosopher, or you can be a conservative and be a philosopher - but you cannot claim to be objective and still be a philosopher.‘Course if you are a socialist and you actually are open to facts and logic, you are unlikely to remain a socialist. IMHO. And the limitation one faces in claiming to be objective is that such a claim denies that you are trying to be objective - the first principle of trying to be objective is, of course, looking critically at the incentives you face, and reasons why you might not be objective.
The internet went corporate.
People have grown complacent in their walled gardens. However, this year the wardens are exceeding the tolerance of the good people. Competition is just a binge coding session away.