Bret Weinstein cancelled again?

Weinstein's latest investigation is into Covid and given the evidence he supports he refuses to get vaccinated. This wiki section on him describes it as such:

"David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and scientist known for exposing pseudoscience,^[39] described Weinstein as a prominent 'COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation' who supports using ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.^[40] Weinstein took ivermectin during a livestream video and said both he and his wife had not been vaccinated because of their 'fears' concerning COVID-19 vaccines.^[41] There is no good evidence of benefit from ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19.^[42][43] YouTube demonetized the couple's channels in response to their claims about ivermectin.^[44] In June 2021, Weinstein erroneously claimed that the spike protein produced by or contained within COVID-19 vaccines is 'very dangerous' and 'cytotoxic'"

So Taibbi does an article on the second 'cancellation' defending Weinstein against it. YouTube 'censored' Weinstein for his Dr. Kory interview on treating Covid with ivermetcin and his interview with Dr. Malone, inventor of the mRNA tech used in the vaccine. In the latter case and noted in the wiki, Weinstein supported Malone's claims that the vaccine was dangerous and cytotoxic. Taibbi though defends his free speech rights regardless of "whether or not one agrees with [him] about the efficacy of ivermectin, or the idea that the Covid-19 vaccines carry unreported dangers."

But that is exactly the issue: Freedom of speech is only guaranteed from government interference. Private businesses have the freedom of press to make available something or not based on its own research if it finds claims made spurious or questionable. And that is what's happened with YouTube.

Julian Marc Walker had this to say about it on Facebook:

The Bret Weinstein Category Error

 

1) There is no such thing as "heterodox science." The term (as used by moral psychologist Jon Haidt) applies to the discussion of political points of view that by definition don't reduce easily to objective, evidenced facts. 

 

2) Science is already a method of rigorously checking for self-deception and bias. You've stepped over the line into pseudoscience and conspiracism when you start identifying failed or fringe-science ideas as supposedly being suppressed by mainstream orthodoxy. 

 

3) Big scientific breakthroughs that are paradigm-shifting are very rare, and always only ever happen via strong evidence, never by podcast revelation, charismatic opinion, or contrarian passion.

 

4) Rejection of heterodox political discussion can (up to a point) be a form of unhealthy, illiberal group-think. But the rejection of identifiable pseudoscience and conspiracism is healthy and central to rational discourse.

 

5) A privately-owned service electing not to share ad revenue with you, or even not to platform your content, is not censorship. You are still able to use your free speech, I am just free to decide to kick you out of my living room if I don't like what you're saying.

 

6) Incitement to violence or dehumanizing people on basis of immutable characteristics are two valid reasons to do so. Spreading conspiracist misinformation & pseudoscience with dangerous individual and collective implications during a massive public health crisis is another.