>I don't think that's true You don't think tens of millions of voters and future voters are have watched political videos on YouTube? >but even if you could p

>I don't think that's true You don't think tens of millions of voters and future voters are have watched political videos on YouTube? >but even if you could prove it, it doesn't matter. You keep saying it doesn't matter without actually addressing my argument. >You should not be entitled to use YouTube just because its popular and people discuss politics there. Says who? You? >YouTube is not a public street corner, it's a private business and platform that you don't pay to use. The point of analogies is not that the two things are identical, but that they are similar in some particular important way. >It's more like saying you can't talk about your political message inside a popular tavern because the owners have decided they are not friendly to the political message. A popular tavern with tens of millions of people in it, maybe. >That is not a violation of your rights Depends on who you ask. Rights aren't written anywhere in the stars. People make them up. >that is how private property works. Private property rights are not absolute. >Wow. That's a very disingenuous reading of what I wrote. Actually you revealed a lot about your opinion from what you wrote. You said it's a mistake for people to value being able to post political content on YouTube more highly than they value being able to post political content on HN, because HN is filled with elites who do some ripple effect thing, whereas YouTube is filled with poor uninformed simpletons. In other words, they should value being able to beg the elites to do the ripple effect thing for them more than they should value being able to spread their message directly to like-minded people. Poor uninformed simpletons can't make changes on their own, they need elites to do it for them. The problem is that the elites want cheap vegetables, so they don't want the poor simpletons to get paid more.