3 ms·

So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? Companies can only provide products and services to willing customers. To r

So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? Companies can only provide products and services to willing customers. To restrict them is to restrict the choices of your own people to choose products they prefer. So what you're really arguing for is the majority in a country restricting the freedom of a minority in that same country.

lm28469 5y ago
> So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? How did you extrapolate that ? No I really don't get your second point. You can't sell me a car without seat belt, you can't sell me weed, you can't host a jihad video platform. You're already restricted in many ways. The world doesn't have to kneel in front of YouTube &co and accept all their bullshit. America isn't a role model, neither in politics nor culture, the world doesn't need to conform to what America think is right. Also, YouTube doesn't exist to serve the people, certainly not, it exists to make money and uses tax evasion to pay as little as possible in most EU countries, if they wanted to serve the people they could start there
- unishark 5y ago
  You're the one who brought national origin into the thread. The arguments on both sides were made just fine without it. As for the second point, yes and those examples are also cases of restricting their own citizens. Hence the discussion is still about rights of the citizenry versus their own government restricting them, not "rights" of companies as you put it. The world is free to not use YouTube and always has been. And by the way I don't agree with many of the major websites' censorship decisions in the last couple years either. They depict only what a loud subset of America thinks is right. Companies generally make money by serving people. I suppose there are business models where this isn't so (e.g. they exist to sue people or something, but exploiting govt's ability to take money by force instead), but in YouTube's case, they entice people the consensual way.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    The vast majority of companies shaping the social discourse are American. You can't conveniently ignore the fact, it's inherently part of the discussion. I'm not drown in Gambian or Afghan cultural bs

lm28469 5y ago

> So using "foreign" as a pejorative is cool as long as the foreigners are Americans? How did you extrapolate that ? No I really don't get your second point. You can't sell me a car without seat belt, you can't sell me weed, you can't host a jihad video platform. You're already restricted in many ways. The world doesn't have to kneel in front of YouTube &co and accept all their bullshit. America isn't a role model, neither in politics nor culture, the world doesn't need to conform to what America think is right. Also, YouTube doesn't exist to serve the people, certainly not, it exists to make money and uses tax evasion to pay as little as possible in most EU countries, if they wanted to serve the people they could start there

unishark 5y ago
You're the one who brought national origin into the thread. The arguments on both sides were made just fine without it. As for the second point, yes and those examples are also cases of restricting their own citizens. Hence the discussion is still about rights of the citizenry versus their own government restricting them, not "rights" of companies as you put it. The world is free to not use YouTube and always has been. And by the way I don't agree with many of the major websites' censorship decisions in the last couple years either. They depict only what a loud subset of America thinks is right. Companies generally make money by serving people. I suppose there are business models where this isn't so (e.g. they exist to sue people or something, but exploiting govt's ability to take money by force instead), but in YouTube's case, they entice people the consensual way.
- lm28469 5y ago
  The vast majority of companies shaping the social discourse are American. You can't conveniently ignore the fact, it's inherently part of the discussion. I'm not drown in Gambian or Afghan cultural bs