Interesting story here where Google has announced on its platforms such as YouTube will start allowing conversations that dive into the topic of voter fraud where in the past people would get potentially banned for the topic or at minimum have their content removed. People wonder why now and apparently their explanation was that continuing to censor these topic will directly affect things like political speech and I suppose this would make them extremely bias.
It got me thinking though, would people who were affected in the past for these decisions be say compensated or apologized to in any way per se? It reminds me of other platforms and topics in the past such as the origins of COVID allegedly came from a lab where similarly businesses were suppressing those kinds of content where oddly enough today there are so many official sources claiming it may just be the case.
It almost feels like one of those situations where a company is going to look bad either way after backtracking. I often felt it is very dangerous to take the extreme side when you are a business as you never know where you may be wrong in the future. Imagine if it was for topics nowadays that people universally condemn such as racism where in the past you were a company that banned everyone of a certain ethnicity because a large part of the population felt it was justified. Like there, that wouldn’t look good if a company went all in and restricted one side. Should business just try to be neutral and focus on providing products and services?