4 ms·
> You have not actually provided evidence to the contrary YouTube is arguing that I shouldn't be able to provide evidence to the contrary, which is the point.
by abernard1 6y ago
> You have not actually provided evidence to the contrary
YouTube is arguing that I shouldn't be able to provide evidence to the contrary, which is the point.
I'm not arguing with the list of bullet points. I'm arguing with the very silly implication that there is an obvious "truth" that some MegaCorp should be able to hand down and enforce on this.
- somehnrdr14726 6y agoYou are free to host your video evidence on your own website, following your own internal moderation rules for what is deemed credible or not. No one is taking this right from you.
- abernard1 6y ago> No one is taking this right from you. Correct. But it's tantamount to saying "you can't speak in this public square, how about you pretend your front yard is a public square and speak there." Eventually, people are going to say the hell with that and that Google's "private" management of 90% of inbound searches and content is, in fact, public. After that, maybe we can start calling it Gov-gle or something once it's nationalized.
- somehnrdr14726 6y agoThere are no public squares on the internet. Every DNS resolution leads to privately owned 'land'. You can be escorted off the property for nearly any reason. Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily.
- abernard1 6y ago> Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily. Welp. Time to get rid of Section 230 then! Apparently these companies aren't neutral carriers and should be held liable for what they censor in their editorial discretion.