The advent of modern technology has brought us extraordinary freedoms. Millions now find love by swiping on their phone, podcasters reach audiences of millions from the comfort of their bedrooms and well-meaning neighbours keep us safe by recording private arguments and sending them to national newspapers.
Nowadays elections pivot on viral content published online, while political careers can be ended by an ill-thought tweet or launched with an ingenious piece of clickbait. According to Pew Research, over 61 per cent of milennials get their political news primarily from Facebook. In the decades to come, TV and legacy media will cede power and influence to social media, YouTube and podcasts.
This opening up of this marketplace of information undoubtedly carries huge benefits, but as our political dialogue becomes more heated, it prompts worrying questions.
Who controls the space in which these freedoms are exercised? Are the platforms we use neutral spaces or are they taking a lead from the old media, which often promote ideas they like, while overlooking the rest?
The answers are far from encouraging. A video leaked last year showed Google executives reacting tearfully to Donald Trump's election victory in 2016. When discussing the result afterwards, company CFO Ruth Porat committed to "use the great strength, resources and reach we have to continue to advance important values".
The repercussions of a company with an effective monopoly on our news using its position to impose 'values' should concern us all.
If you are in any doubt about the company's willingness to restrict access to information, try googling Tiananmen Square on your next trip to China. Google also owns YouTube, arguably the biggest platform that allows content-creators to offer an alternative to the mainstream media.
The website has fuelled the success of podcasts like the Joe Rogan Experience, the Rubin Report and my own show, TRIGGERnometry, which hosts long-form discussions between people with different political leanings.
The model is simple: you create content, YouTube publishes it and runs adverts on your videos. The content creators get a cut of the ad revenue in a process called 'monetisation'. This allows creators to be independent of media barons and special interest groups. Popular shows can generate six-figure revenues for their creators.
This independence, however, is now in question. Over recent months, both YouTube and Facebook, whose Watch platform is based on the same principle, have demonetised and outright banned a number of creators.
Particularly telling was the recent demonetisation of Steven Crowder, a conservative online comedian, who was deemed by YouTube not to have violated their terms of service amid accusations of harassment and homophobia... and then had his channel demonetised anyway. The platform simply caved to social media pressure.
Comment: See: YouTube ends monetization of conservative commentator Steven Crowder's channel after left-wing outrage
In the aftermath of these events, the platform revised its terms of service. The imposition of yet more restrictions resulted in automated algorithms demonetising huge numbers of videos and banning numerous channels.
These included Scott Allsop, a history teacher, whose channel was banned for hosting archival footage of Nazi rallies before eventually being reinstated, and David Pakman, a progressive political commentator, who temporarily lost 99 percent of his revenue.
YouTube's treatment of my own channel shows these worrying trends in action. Automatic demonetisation targeted any video which mentioned feminism, trans rights (including our interview with trans TV presenter India Willoughby), social justice, racism, immigration and, of course, YouTube censorship.
Some of these were re-monetised on appeal but, tellingly, the restrictions on interviews with Katharine Birbalsingh, the conservative headmistress of the Michaela Community School, and Dr Linda Papadopoulous, who warned us of the dangers of social media, remain. Even a discussion with a comedian arguing against the existence of online censorship was permanently demonetised.
The fundamental truth exposed by these events is that the Big Tech companies are run predominantly by left wing liberals who believe they have a responsibility to save us from 'bad ideas'. For all its focus on diversity, Silicon Valley is about as ideologically diverse as a vegan powwow.
According to allegations in a recent lawsuit, Google employees who express conservative viewpoints are routinely blacklisted, discriminated against and prevented from advancing within the company, though in legal filings, Google disputes that conservatives represent an identifiable class under the law. A full 85 per cent of Republicans and right-leaning independents in the US now believe social media sites internationally censor political content.
One of the many problems with this approach is that it does not work. Crowder's experience is a perfect example. In the week after being demonetised, his channel gained 500 per cent more subscribers than usual and received extensive financial support and media coverage, in a classic case of the "Streisand Effect", named after Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu inadvertently drew further public attention to it.
What is clear, however, is that social media companies will continue to give in to Twitter mobs demanding more online censorship.
Old-school liberals like myself may baulk at the idea of government interference, but it is surely time to ask whether we need a First Amendment for the Internet which ensures that different political voices can be heard in the digital public square of tomorrow.
Konstantin Kisin is a comedian and the host of the TRIGGERnometry podcast
Comment: Social media platforms are seriously overstepping their bounds in making themselves arbiters of acceptable discourse. If they were smart, they would remain neutral and let those who have always been responsible for enforcing speech laws continue. But it seems they would rather step away from neutrality and try to use their power to influence the masses. By making themselves responsible for what gets published on their platform, they open themselves up to all sorts of hassle, but apparently they would rather control public opinion than simply provide a service.
See also: