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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @xilefheinzel and
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @xilefheinzel and
Not in the First Amendment, but in the laws passed by CONGRESS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @JMeuvi76 and
It's in the way communication is regulated from my understanding. You can be like the phone company, where you can't be held liable and take no responsibility for content, or like a publisher where you can be held liable, and take all responsibility for content.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @schwaka_ @KJ_Jeller and
Currently, social media falls under the first category legally, while they behave like they're in the second. They need to pick a side and take what comes with it instead of sitting in the middle and picking the parts they like from each side.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Exactly. You just ruined your own point here. Since they are publishers, they don't have to give everyone a platform. But since these social media companies profess to be platforms, they legally are required to give everyone a platform.
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.