3 ms·
As long as you maintain that the argument is about whether violence is an appropriate or in any way justified response to YouTube's conduct, you're arguing agai
by psyc 9y ago
As long as you maintain that the argument is about whether violence is an appropriate or in any way justified response to YouTube's conduct, you're arguing against a strawman. Again, nobody is saying that, and they aren't really implying it either, unless you believe that any statement that weakens a good case must be false or regarded as support for the opposing case - again, more of a rhetorical concern than a concern about what is true.
- kamaal 9y ago>>As long as you maintain that the argument is about whether violence is an appropriate He clearly mentioned that YouTube is already doing great service to people by hosting their videos, providing serving infrastructure and content discoverability. The fact that people seem to be, to the extent, expect YouTube to pay them, instead of being thankful to all the free stuff YT provides itself feels wrong here.