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 …
So we admit that YouTube is a publisher and not a platform then? Because clear rules would be a fantastic change of pace for everyone involved. Or are you unclear what you are arguing for?
-
-
Two things. 1) Stockholders generally don't like when their company provides a platform for people who've been cited in the manifestos of terrorists who've committed mass murders in synagogues, mosques, and churches. If you don't like YouTube's direction, buy stock and vote. 1/2
-
2) YouTube is exercising their right to Free Speech by deciding what they want on their platform. Free Speech is about rules made by Congress. It's not about being free from the consequences of speech. You can get fired or denied a platform, but you can't go to jail.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think you are unclear. I am arguing that YouTube is not the government. They are a business and are free to make business decisions. They are not censoring anyone. I know you what to spin this to be more than that, but that is literally all I am saying.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
