There are now Gatekeepers to Free Speech.

In order for your speech to be heard you must adhere to certain guidelines, you must follow certain rules of conformity and “proper” social behaviour. Your speech must first be deemed as Suitable or Non-Offensive to others. In many cases you must first get Permission in order to vocalise your thoughts to the public, and then could be delegated to a far away place, more often than not, out of the reach of the public, Free Speech Zones.

Internet platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc were all at one time an avenue used for Free Speech.

The ability to post, broadcast a thought, a concept, a belief, to millions was a wonderful development in bringing the world closer. We were able to see how others lived from parts of the world we had only seen in books. We were exposed to different, and at times radical opinions and thoughts, some of which were uncomfortable, and some thought provoking, challenging our own belief system. This development bypassed the stodgy old gatekeepers — newspaper editors, television programmers and other establishment types — and let people reach others directly. Though it seems we might have come full circle.

Freedom of Speech is a Right, not a privilege. The internet did not change that, it just increased its reach.

Censorship or Gatekeepers ?

Governments have turned these Social Media sites into Gatekeepers. They, the Governments, deem what is appropriate, and in turn demand that the Social Media giants enforce it, going as far as to penalize these platforms with hefty fines if they allow something, a post, a video, etc to get through. The Government is the Censorship Machine and the Media Sites are the Gatekeepers, though not all by choice.

Alex Jones, whether you agree with him or not, used these sites for years, promoting his program, live streaming content to millions of viewers. Then all at once he was banned, from all.

Was it solely the decision of these sites? Or were they coerced by a much more powerful force?

If it were left up to the Companies they would make the decision on whether or not to ban certain content on how that content effected their business. If certain content turned away users, and in turn limited their user base which in turn would then reduce their income potential, they would take action on their own, and ban or censor certain content. This is very basic economics 101.

Do we truly need a minority of people to judge what is appropriate for the rest of us?

If so, how could we put it into the hands of people who rage war on other countries ? Not for moral reasons mind you, but for their friends.