If you're outraged by Disney deciding not to provide a platform for Oliver, then you should be outraged by YouTube deciding not to provide a platform for certain conservatives. If it's really about the principle and not the party. I'm not naming any names but I see a lot of hypocrisy comparing the comments here to the comments on the PragerU article from earlier today.

Does anyone else find it incredibly hypocritical that on the one hand, Google spends a lot lobbying for net neutrality to force telecom carriers to act as neutral platforms making no distinction between content, but meanwhile Youtube is a giant monopoly that claims the right to censor whatever content it damn well pleases? We need net neutrality for social media monopolies. How do you justify a double standard where the lower levels of the stack are forced to be neutral platforms, but the higher levels aren't?

Why should anyone trust twitter to be the ultimate arbiter of truth?

The subtext of all these efforts to purge "misinformation" from social media is that democrats are salty about the 2016 election and want to blame it on the other side lying, even though they lie just as much if not more.

The enforcement will never be unbiased. I could list a million provably false statements that Twitter will never label as such:
* claiming women only earn 78 cents for every dollar men earn "for the same work"
* claiming there are no innate psychological differences between men and women
* blaming black arrest rates on "racist cops" rather than actual crime rate differences.
* claiming that the third world is poor because of colonialism
* claiming that europe is rich because of colonialism
* claiming there is no difference in IQ test scores between ethnic groups.
* claiming that "trickle down theory" ever existed
* blaming the housing bubble on "greed" rather than government policies to subsidize homeownership (increasing demand) while simultaneously blocking new construction (decreasing supply)
* claiming that real communism has never been tried

I could go on for days listing misinformation that Twitter will never label as such.

Note in the graph at the top of page 15 that having an obviously-gendered profile hurt the acceptance rates of men even more than it hurt the acceptance rates of women. This completely undermines any conclusion that women are being discriminated against in pull request acceptance.

This is just going to make them even more famous via the Streisand effect. Censorship is, and should be, completely futile. Either keep a secret at-will or deal with the consequences of everybody talking about it. The internet provides anonymous absolute free speech, and resistance is futile.