My observation about 'Bit Chute' was that it hosts videos that have been universally condemned as misinformation and even dangerous by other platforms and communities.
Every pile in history of burned books was deemed to be universally condemned and dangerous.
As we've talked about, any service that does not censor content will have:
1. Garbage material that is universally condemned, that you and I both would consider to be garbage.
2. Some non-garbage material, not in the mainstream because it contradicts an agenda.
If a person will never look at anything from or distributed by an organization condemned by the mainstream -- it means he therefore will miss much information that contradicts the mainstream.
That dynamic has been helpful throughout history to groups in power.
It's OK, though. The world needs all kinds of people. If a group in power says, "You shouldn't read that -- it's dangerous or condemned," it becomes something I feel especially obligated to check. Yet, if everyone were like me, it wouldn't be best for the world. There's some proportion of people like me in that respect and not like me that is best for the world.
To answer that with a cry for 'freedom of speech' is not all that different than saying anyone should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded movie house or display porn in a grade school classroom or church because ..... freedom
Completely incorrect.
As I've said, the following two things -- which I support -- are typical, non-controversial, and beneficial:
A. The usual small set of speech that is illegal.
B. That people and organizations (such as schools) can (and do and have the right to) decide what information to convey and what information not to convey.
