4 ms·

I'm sorry, but no one from a reasonable standpoint is going to look at Google not hosting "misleading content" and then think democracy is threatened.

Ostrogodsky 5y ago
Yeah google de-indexing all pages criticizing the democrats and the company is also not threat to democracy. They must provide us with a curated set of sound information vetted by the politicians, FAANG and the state department.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  No one is curating anything. If you want your right-wing search engine, then create it. Google is under no obligation to give you top page rank.
  - throwitaway1235 5y ago
    Can we at least agree on some basic facts? Google does in fact curate search. Where a page is listed does not depend on how many times the link was clicked. Yes?
  - Ostrogodsky 5y ago
    "If you want your left-wing gasoline create it. Shell,Citgo, Exxon,etc are in no obligation to give it to you. Go and extract your own oil and refine it."
  - drstewart 5y ago
    >If you want your right-wing search engine, then create it. And your true intentions come out. If Google delists AOC from all their properties in the next election and replaces the results with those from her opposition, I'm sure you'll be the first to say it's totally fine and she should just host her own search site if she doesn't like it.
throwitaway1235 5y ago
I do. A candidate for political office being barred from posting campaign clips to YouTube is a threat to our democracy. Most average people view YouTube as the defacto video portal of the entire internet.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  Once again, a candidate not being able to post to Youtube is not a threat to democracy. Nothing is stopping this candidate from posting this on their campaign site, or an RNC affiliated site or even Facebook where most of their supporters are likely to be.
  - throwitaway1235 5y ago
    YouTube would be literally interfering with a democratic election. If threat is too strong a word, fine. But you can't deny that they are actively participating in public elections. We want that? We want to privatize democracy? I don't.
  - prepend 5y ago
    > Once again, a candidate not being able to post to Youtube is not a threat to democracy. Yes it is. Youtube is a huge conduit for communication. Imagine if ABC banned a candidate. The argument that there’s still CBS and NBC are available is not relevant as a major media outlet is favoring a candidate by blocking their opponents. For small outlets it’s not an issue. But YouTube is the biggest video provider on the planet, not allowing a political candidate would be detrimental to democracy. Even if that candidate said stupid stuff like “world is flat.” People have to make their decision and as long as we’re a democracy, that choice should be individual.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Don't NBC and ABC and CBS ban lots of candidates? If you don't have a big enough chance at winning, you don't go to debates Mind you, news networks recently had a very strong preference towards the incumbent president, aligning their news to match the president's talking points, and having nightly calls to align their messages

Ostrogodsky 5y ago

Yeah google de-indexing all pages criticizing the democrats and the company is also not threat to democracy. They must provide us with a curated set of sound information vetted by the politicians, FAANG and the state department.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
No one is curating anything. If you want your right-wing search engine, then create it. Google is under no obligation to give you top page rank.
- throwitaway1235 5y ago
  Can we at least agree on some basic facts? Google does in fact curate search. Where a page is listed does not depend on how many times the link was clicked. Yes?
- Ostrogodsky 5y ago
  "If you want your left-wing gasoline create it. Shell,Citgo, Exxon,etc are in no obligation to give it to you. Go and extract your own oil and refine it."
- drstewart 5y ago
  >If you want your right-wing search engine, then create it. And your true intentions come out. If Google delists AOC from all their properties in the next election and replaces the results with those from her opposition, I'm sure you'll be the first to say it's totally fine and she should just host her own search site if she doesn't like it.

throwitaway1235 5y ago

I do. A candidate for political office being barred from posting campaign clips to YouTube is a threat to our democracy. Most average people view YouTube as the defacto video portal of the entire internet.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
Once again, a candidate not being able to post to Youtube is not a threat to democracy. Nothing is stopping this candidate from posting this on their campaign site, or an RNC affiliated site or even Facebook where most of their supporters are likely to be.
- throwitaway1235 5y ago
  YouTube would be literally interfering with a democratic election. If threat is too strong a word, fine. But you can't deny that they are actively participating in public elections. We want that? We want to privatize democracy? I don't.
- prepend 5y ago
  > Once again, a candidate not being able to post to Youtube is not a threat to democracy. Yes it is. Youtube is a huge conduit for communication. Imagine if ABC banned a candidate. The argument that there’s still CBS and NBC are available is not relevant as a major media outlet is favoring a candidate by blocking their opponents. For small outlets it’s not an issue. But YouTube is the biggest video provider on the planet, not allowing a political candidate would be detrimental to democracy. Even if that candidate said stupid stuff like “world is flat.” People have to make their decision and as long as we’re a democracy, that choice should be individual.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Don't NBC and ABC and CBS ban lots of candidates? If you don't have a big enough chance at winning, you don't go to debates Mind you, news networks recently had a very strong preference towards the incumbent president, aligning their news to match the president's talking points, and having nightly calls to align their messages