The notion that you cannot be censored by a private company is as retarded as the notion that you can’t discriminate a white man.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @sickboyr_ @meedeeums and
I think it must be called censorship if the refusal is based on the content of your videos (irrespective of whether that content is „illegal“). Whether private companies *should* be allowed to discriminate is a different discussion than whether they *do*. In general, I don’t...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Kara54963917L @sickboyr_ and
think it’s a good idea to have such a thing as a „right to be served“. But a bakery that won’t bake your gay wedding cake is still a bakery that won’t bake your gay wedding cake.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Kara54963917L @sickboyr_ and
Also, YouTube doesn‘t quite compare to a small-town bakery, except if there‘d be only one town in the world, and that bakery was the only bakery in town.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @sickboyr_ @meedeeums and
What’s more, even if one bakery in town refuses to serve you, you don’t expect all bakeries in town to conspire not to serve you. This is what I find so unsettling: a) That these tech giants would conspire, and b) that they’d do it to silence *one* individual. My theory is that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Kara54963917L @sickboyr_ and
they did it simultaneously in order to deflect attention, just like a bunch of zebras trying to hide in the herd. After all, the social media sites still need the „we‘re a neutral platform“ defense in order to avoid liability for their users content. But I think that the optics
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
of this move is just *terrible*, and that they miscalculated here.
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.