You're not wrong. But when the alternative is their platforms being used to spread misinformation and hate, there's not really many other options.

they should be neutral. I find it funny how people go up in arms about net neutrality but do a 180 about the information platform providers in the level above ISPs.

I think roads, electricity, and water should be a public utility, but I don't think someone should be able to walk into a Starbucks and scream hateful nonsense.

Here's the difference: Alex Jones can go create his own video site easily, but he can't create his own worldwide ISP.

It's not the same. Starbucks is a strawman.

People have to take action and opt in to watching something on YouTube. They have a choice. If people don't want to hear someone they never have to.

Youtube doesn't provide the means for publishers to interrupt what you are currently watching (well there's ads but that's a bit different as ads have increase scrutiny).

On the internet, the roads, electricity and water are private utilities.

I don't think Alex Jones knows how to code.

And if he used an existing infrastructure like AWS, I would hope AWS would kick him off of it.

I think it is because ISPs (unlike Facebook et al.) are not very successful at participating in the public discourse.

If they would manage their brand as well as Apple, people would probably praise the end of net neutrality.

Meanwhile, people are free to not use their platforms.

that line doesn't work with monopolies.It's like saying 'people are free to leave their country'

Neither one of those companies are monopolies in their industries.

Come on. even peter thiel calls facebook a monopoly, and he 's a board member.

CEOs didn't decide this in a vacuum. Many of their customers and users and shareholders don't want to be associated in any way with IW.

That's slippery slope. They are not censoring based on bias. They are censoring propaganda, disinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence. They've set a very low bar for acceptable content. No reasonable person will miss Alex Jones. If they ever get too heavy-handed you can vote with your feet.

Did 3 CEOs decide this?

Or do many of these companies have commitees that guides such decisions?

Not saying it's ideal, just questioning how the decision was made.

> Or do many of these companies have commitees that guides such decisions?

Whatever the case this doesn't make it any better. I imagine Johannes Gutenberg pondering whether to publish the whole bible or censor the parts he didnt like. Whether he decided on his own , or in a party of 5, it's equally evil.