Does the implementation of the "counter" matter to you? Do you think giant corporations should be the gatekeeper on what information/ideas/speech is permitted and what is not?
But is it an authoritarian solution? Does that terminology make sense outside of the sociopolitical context of government action? I feel it really diminishes the meaning of the word, "authoritarian" when you throw it around to describe the rights reserved by a non-government entity to police its own platform.
A private company has a platform, and they can choose what content to allow on the platform. If you don't like it then enjoy your content elsewhere.
If anything, it sounds like a bit of a made up problem to declare Amazon (or another similarly sized tech company) is being authoritarian by removing anti-vaccination videos. I mean come on, we have a rich history of authoritarian governments murdering people for vocal dissent. I get that you disagree with private censorship, but let's have some perspective now...
It's bigger than "just one company". You say it's the company's free choice but that is not true. There is a large amount of pressure on companies to conform. It's a part of a broader movement to shut down dissent wherever it exists.
This movement is successfully censoring billions of people. The gloves are softer than before but the scale is larger and this is a huge threat.
there's always been bad information but it was previously hard to disseminate NEW bad information quickly. It was incredibly expensive, slow and there were watchers, gatekeepers ... various religious authorities, newspaper editors etc. now the russian election manipulation cyber warfare division or your local anti-vax grifter can anonymously target a limitless number of impressionable rubes with the click of a mouse. often for free if the content's viral. thanks social media!
