YT being a private platform is irrelevant here. They still ve rules 4 actions they take, just like public institutions. N in both cases, fake news is treated differently from free speech. That's why DT's account or the video havent been blockd.
-
-
And btw, fake news IS free speech. The only way to counter it is to debunk it and rebut it, not shut it down or censor it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Fake new is NOT free speech by any measure. N that's why evn the 'public' institutions which u've explaind form rules by legislations strive 2 curb it. N ppl get arrestd/convictd if it leads 2 some harm 2 any1. N pvt ones block accounts :) A simple google search will help u
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Private ones block them based on their own guidelines, same set of guidelines can justify Dhruv's video being demonetised. Btw, fake news is free speech by every strech of imagination. The simple fact of laws being passed against them does not make it any less so. (1/2)
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RealAChatterjee @neelesh_korade and
If that were the case, sedition laws that were used to punish Kanhaiya and JNU would also be justified, but obviously they cannot. Point is, legality has no direct relation to constitutionality and morality. (2/2)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Again, we are comparing things that can't be. Whether Kanhaiya n UmarK were really guilty of sedition or not in no way implies fake news is free speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The point is, guilt of sedition and guilt of fake news both imply guilt of free speech. The problem with our countrymen is that we have normalised and mainstreamed the rationale behind such a percieved guilt, while never questioning the constitutionality of such laws.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I see we have disagreement on some basic aspects. Sedition and fake news to me in no way are free speech. (True) Free speech does not amount to any guilt. And bcoz u mentioned Kanhaiya's case, to me it seems like abuse of law by the govt.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The Constitution disagrees with you. Sedition and fake news are free speech. Unless of course, if you are a BJP supporter who supports all the changes made to article 19 by Nehru post 1950, just because they don't want to be offended. You either have free speech or you don't.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
What you are saying is inconsistent with itself. U're saying Nehru changed article 19 n then congress lived with it 4 so long, but still only BJP supporters can think the change was right. And this is when BJP is the prime peddler of fake news today. Doesn't add up!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No, your statements are the ones which don't add up. Here are the facts: Artcle 19 was amended UNCONSTITUTIONALLY (just like 377 was unconstitutional, being a law doesn't make it morally right) And a private corporation like Youtube has every right to defund a video. Good day.
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.