11 ms·

> ...YouTube should not be removing... > Youtube can remove... You're arguing against a strawman. "can" and "should" are different things.

by sxp 6y ago

polka_haunts_us 6y ago
I replaced "can" with "should", and the rest of my post didn't change at all. It doesn't change the point at all. It's a meaningless semantic objection. I am not convinced whatsoever that YouTube "should" be mandated to carry congressional testimony, presidential communication, or anything else they don't want to carry. Removing it is not deplatforming it because as stated, Congress already has a platform. It's easily accessible. It's free.
- edbob 6y ago
  > Social networking websites have become such an important source of information that even sex offenders should not be barred from social media, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.[0] > social networking sites have become a major part of "the marketplace of ideas," in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words. "Increasingly, this is the way people get ... all information," Justice Elena Kagan said. "This is the way people structure their civic community life." > During oral argument, only Justice Samuel Alito mounted much of a defense of the law, suggesting that it could be limited to core social networking sites rather than The New York Times or Betty Crocker. "There are still alternative channels," he said. But David Goldberg of Stanford Law School's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who represented Packingham, said Twitter hosts about 500 million tweets a day, and Snapchat hosts 10 billion videos — statistics that are not replicable elsewhere. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-can-access-social-media/103006410/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supr... SCOTUS can see clearly that having a platform is insufficient if that platform has <1% of the reach of the platforms that everyone else uses.

> ...YouTube should not be removing... > Youtube can remove... You're arguing against a strawman. "can" and "should" are different things.

by sxp 6y ago

> ...YouTube should not be removing... > Youtube can remove... You're arguing against a strawman. "can" and "should" are different things.

polka_haunts_us 6y ago

I replaced "can" with "should", and the rest of my post didn't change at all. It doesn't change the point at all. It's a meaningless semantic objection. I am not convinced whatsoever that YouTube "should" be mandated to carry congressional testimony, presidential communication, or anything else they don't want to carry. Removing it is not deplatforming it because as stated, Congress already has a platform. It's easily accessible. It's free.

edbob 6y ago
> Social networking websites have become such an important source of information that even sex offenders should not be barred from social media, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.[0] > social networking sites have become a major part of "the marketplace of ideas," in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words. "Increasingly, this is the way people get ... all information," Justice Elena Kagan said. "This is the way people structure their civic community life." > During oral argument, only Justice Samuel Alito mounted much of a defense of the law, suggesting that it could be limited to core social networking sites rather than The New York Times or Betty Crocker. "There are still alternative channels," he said. But David Goldberg of Stanford Law School's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who represented Packingham, said Twitter hosts about 500 million tweets a day, and Snapchat hosts 10 billion videos — statistics that are not replicable elsewhere. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-says-sex-offenders-can-access-social-media/103006410/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supr... SCOTUS can see clearly that having a platform is insufficient if that platform has <1% of the reach of the platforms that everyone else uses.