Okay, if this is the game now, let's play. This nonsense works both ways. Please explain why it doesn't harm the broader @YouTube community when Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a "feckless c***," when Colbert calls Trump a "c*** holster" for Vladimir Putin.https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1136341801109843968 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @benshapiro @YouTube
See, this is why I would never put my entire career at the mercy of
@TeamYouTube like many youtubers do. It’s because their policies don’t really mean anything. If they don’t like you, they’ll demonitize you and legally there’s nothing you can do about it.19 replies 96 retweets 803 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment.
42 replies 0 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @ILikeBonhoeffer @RobBowlinThe3rd and
Yes it is. Hate speech literally means nothing
3 replies 0 retweets 135 likes -
Replying to @Majaffey @ILikeBonhoeffer and
That is true, but his monetization is not protected. You can disagree with YT and their lack of a coherent policy, yet what they are doing is within their right.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @xilefheinzel @Majaffey and
Not really. By law they have to be either a platform or a publisher, they can't be both. Right now they are marketing themselves as a platform, but if they decide to be a publisher instead, that means they are legally responsible for everything that goes up on their site.
6 replies 3 retweets 53 likes
Well, if they're legally a platform, then they do have to uphold free speech. If they're a publisher, then they don't. They need to clearly make this distinction.
-
-
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @xilefheinzel and
Not in the First Amendment, but in the laws passed by CONGRESS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.