Finally someone posted something logical and well reasoned, thank you!
Content creator protections and guardrails go both ways and can protect both the producers of propaganda but also the small independent voices of dissent too. People don't realize that voices of dissent can be shouted down or terrorized by trolls and harassment. Imagine a scenario where a small content creator speaks out against powerful governments. These governments have their online propaganda farms troll that users content with dislikes and hateful comments designed to scare them into deleting it. The dislike ratio is then used to downvote the content so it doesn't appear in people's recommended watch lists a form of censorship in itself.
I'd rather have a platform both protects the powerful and the vulnerable equally well than a platform that protects neither or only one of them.
Content creator protections and guardrails go both ways and can protect both the producers of propaganda but also the small independent voices of dissent too. People don't realize that voices of dissent can be shouted down or terrorized by trolls and harassment. Imagine a scenario where a small content creator speaks out against powerful governments. These governments have their online propaganda farms troll that users content with dislikes and hateful comments designed to scare them into deleting it. The dislike ratio is then used to downvote the content so it doesn't appear in people's recommended watch lists a form of censorship in itself.
I'd rather have a platform both protects the powerful and the vulnerable equally well than a platform that protects neither or only one of them.