4 ms·

I think you are misunderstand GP. It’s not that YouTube violates the law. It’s that the law makes a clear rule for the government. What’s good is the clarity o

I think you are misunderstand GP. It’s not that YouTube violates the law. It’s that the law makes a clear rule for the government. What’s good is the clarity of the rule. Other attempts at rules become too subjective, perhaps. So maybe it would be better if these companies actually followed the same rule as the government is required to, even if they aren’t currently legally obligated to. Perhaps if they had to play by those rules, they would come up with a better solution than subjective moderation by a small group of employees.

komali2 6y ago
> So maybe it would be better if these companies actually followed the same rule as the government is required to, even if they aren’t currently legally obligated to. I disagree. The difference between private organizations enforcing a moral code, and the government, is strong. Ostensibly, if racists wanted their own youtube, they could make one. I see nothing of value in the further existence of the racists' mindset, but I do think it's important that there aren't thought police, for many of the same reasons that your average alt-right racist would yell about "freeze peach." Of course, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing to have thought police, if there were open stretches of ungoverned land where racists could go live and start their own government. Beyond Antarctica though, that isn't the case. So for now, I think it's important to allow that separation between private and public rule.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  In many people’s view, adhering to the first amendment principles is the strong moral code. So even if it shouldn’t be mandated that a private company do that, it’s reasonable to hold the position that this would be a preferable stance for the company to take.