3 ms·
A corporation deciding not to run ads on videos of a crank promoting snake oil is not a First Amendment issue. It is barely even a censorship issue in the broad
by ww2buff 5y ago
A corporation deciding not to run ads on videos of a crank promoting snake oil is not a First Amendment issue. It is barely even a censorship issue in the broadest sense of the term. Very sad to see Taibbi reduced to this kind of totally empty hysteria.
- mnouquet 5y agoIf promoting a certain snake oil because you'll receive government favours, then it IS censorship, cf. all the Title IX unconstitutional enforcement following threats of pulling federal fundings. In this case, GAFAMs are scared as can be from being "regulated".
- GekkePrutser 5y agoYeah I was a bit surprised when I read the article and what they're complaining about is being demonetised. Not blocked. I don't think this constitutes censorship. They can still publish what they want. They just don't get paid for it this way. If what they have to say it's that important, does it really matter? If they're indeed scientists, don't they have a day job doing science? I'm all for free speech but getting paid for it is another issue altogether IMO. Still an ethical topic worth debating, but not a free speech issue.