Freedom of speech is important for everyone, not just people you agree with. This is the battle. The lines have been drawn. What side will YOU take?
-
-
The one that owns a public platform?
-
YouTube is publicly accessible, but it’s not a public platform.
- Još 7 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Exactly how are people supposed to abide by terms of service when they're left entirely arbitrary?
- Još 5 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
While I do think that Crowder has a legit point about being punished, and I expect him to take them to court for contract violation, I also agree that as a private company YouTube, in general, has a right to conduct business on their own terms, but NOT including contract breaking
-
If they continue to act one sided, let’s make another platform, and not sell it to google. Isn’t that how free trade works?
I don’t care if it IS currently a monopoly, if it starts treating major content creators this way, there will be a new market opportunity. - Još 4 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
If terms and conditions weren't fluid or arbitrary or not abided by the private company ,i would agree.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
So Crowder's side? Because YouTube is just making it up as they go. Just like Twitter, Facebook, and the rest.
-
Did Crowder make YouTube agree to a terms of service?
- Još 15 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.