3 ms·
My point is that they don't get to decide that, though. They decide whether they will pay for hosting, but they can't stop him from paying for his own hosting e
by paulgb 6y ago
My point is that they don't get to decide that, though. They decide whether they will pay for hosting, but they can't stop him from paying for his own hosting elsewhere.
Likewise, if the WSJ decides not to publish my letter to the editor, they aren't violating my freedom of speech, they are just deciding not to amplify it.
- tomp 6y agoYou’re trivialising the issue a bit. Remember when CloudFront stopped providing DDos protection to some white nationalist website (I forgot which one). “Just start your own multi-billion company bro!”
- busymom0 6y agoYou are comparing apples to oranges. WSJ is a publisher. These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers.
- paulgb 6y ago> These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers. If this is referring to Section 230, I think it's a misinterpration. Section 230 gives platforms the ability to moderate without being (legally) treated as a publisher, but it doesn't make them into a utility. If it's referring to a different law, I'm curious which one. In your view, if YouTube is not a publisher, should they be required to host pornography? Are the community features part of the platform, or is YouTube entitled to host content but make it undiscoverable?
- mythrwy 6y agoAnd my point is that it's undesirable to have a handful of companies with this kind of control. The "host your own" argument is done to death truly. If one type of speech can be hosted for "free" by a company with 80%+ market share, so should another without discrimination. To allow otherwise is to risk of erosion of our values and enable corruption. Even if you don't like Jones.
- mythrwy 6y agoI'd be more sympathetic to your point if you hadn't said at first (paraphrased) "Alex Jones said this awful thing I disagree with". Therefore you presumably believe it's ok he got kicked off of whatever platform, because of _what_ he believes. You really don't see the moral hazard in that?
- paulgb 6y agoI believe YouTube has the right to remove it whether or not I agree with it, because they don't owe it to anyone to pay their hosting bill.
- mythrwy 6y agoShould a restaurant be able to refuse service to an openly gay couple then in your opinion? What if it offends the other patrons?
- chillwaves 6y agoThere is no law protecting conspiracy theorists.
- mythrwy 6y agoI'm not sure there is a national law requiring businesses to serve gay customers either. I'm just curious how OP feels about that. Besides, who decides who is and who isn't a conspiracy theorist. You? A twitter mob? The government? Some people in San Francisco? The fact that there is apparently such strong disagreement (most of which probably is from people who believe that it is appropriate to use the strong market share of these platforms to mold political discourse) is a bit alarming. No way that ends well.
- chillwaves 6y agoFine, let the court of public opinion decide. Alex Jones is banned from Youtube. People, largely, do not give a shit. Now try banning gay people from a resturant. Good luck with that. And in many jurisdictions it is illegal to discriminate over sexual orientation. There is no such law protecting conspiracy theorists.