Last comment I swear. Let's break down the pieces.

HCQ - Discussion on HCQ are not being suppressed broadly. We are proving that right now. The drug continues to be studied, I bet we could find recent publications. What's being suppressed is the broadcasting of health missinformation on places like youtube.

If you go on YouTube and tell people that arsenic cures headaches and people subsequently dig out their rat poison and die. We would hold you accountable for that missinformation.

HCQ does not cure Covid-19 based on numerous studies. Videos and posts saying it does poses an urgent health risk to the population in at least two ways. First it's a powerful and potentially dangerous drug that people should not be administering themselves. People who seek out the drug on their own, through the grey market, or via other pathways certainly out themselves at risk. Second, it is actively disruptive to the attempts at corralling this pandemic. People who have followed this advice after infection might reasonably believe they are cured, going on to spread covid-19.

I can't figure out 1: what is the slippery slope that's being applied here? Doctors don't need youtube to figure out real cures. Scientist arent having their work suppressed. All we have is some dangerous medic advice ... Which is exactly the kind of thing youtube can and I say should consider removing. If these folks believe they have great ideas there are many journals to publish them in. Or they could attempt to convince the NIH.

Unrestricted Freedom - Your position seems to imply all freedoms are at play but I just want to make it clear that all rights imply restrictions of freedom on behalf of others to protect those rights. If I have a right to life, we restrict someone's freedom to shoot me, etc. So hopefully we can focus on unrestricted free speech.

Within free speech we have a number of restrictions at the state and federal level. Libel, slander, giving medical advice, etc. And I'll assume this is also not the argument.

Finally we have free speech on platforms like facebook, youtube, and Etsy. These are not protected in the constitution of the united states but I believe we're discussing the ethical choices these platforms make on their own behalf.

What do you currently see as tbe risk? What is the harm being done? Who is suffering from the removal of these messages?

Because I can tell you what I see on the other side, the risks to leaving them up. I outlined the harm with HCQ, that people will believe that HCQ cures covid-19, people with no medical training of their own. That this will potentially harm them and their country people. And that by pushing these conversations to happen in other domains does no harm to their merit as ideas

But I think the much bigger risk right now is that our social platforms are enabling fringe groups to form and grow like a cult. Where the folks inside start to lose perspective and the group think empowers ideas that are dangerous to our society. There is no good evidence of wide spread voter manipulation in this presidential election, HCQ does not cure covid-19. But there is a faction of the United States today getting advice from randoms on the internet, being fed lies from pod cast.

Our new social platforms seem to be enabling a wide spread cult in a way that we don't understand. Where inside the cult there's been a domain sheer from reality. I worry that like successful propaganda campaigns used on other nations this could end up radicalizing enough of our population to cause meaningful and irepareable harm to our society.

How do we respond to that?