5 ms·
You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwil
by Retra 7y ago
You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence. (a) and (c) are contradictory. Supposedly you are justifying this by assuming YouTube is the only platform from which one can peacefully advocate their interests. It is not. You could even return to YouTube with moderated content.
I do not find this hypothetical YouTuber to be a peaceful advocate for anybody's interests.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago>You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence. No, I'm not. First, the people driven to violence are not necessarily going to be the content producers. The audience can also be driven to violence by seeing the message they agree with censored. Second, the point is that there are no other equivalent platforms to YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, in terms of their reach. >It is not. What are the other platforms where people can meaningfully participate in the public political debate? >You could even return to YouTube with moderated content. It's up to YouTube to decide what counts as "moderated content". They are currently under no obligation to act in good faith.