3 ms·
I can't really understand the outrage. YouTube is a private company, not a guaranteed free speech institution. It's like trying to place an anti-Google ad and
by rich_sasha 2y ago
I can't really understand the outrage. YouTube is a private company, not a guaranteed free speech institution.
It's like trying to place an anti-Google ad and getting rejected.
I'm not even sure if this is protected by anti-monopoly laws. Perhaps if you want to advertise your own product, then yes, but if someone, out of the kindness of their heart, wants to advertise a competitor's product, is that protected?
I agree the status quo is not great where we rely heavily on platforms like YT, X without any guarantees of availability etc. and we should change that. But that's not at all news...
- EnergyAmy 2y agoCompany towns are private property and yet people still have rights there. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- OutOfHere 2y agoIt is most definitely protected by antitrust and anti-monopoly laws. Whether those laws are enforced or not is a different story.
- rich_sasha 2y agoRight, but do these laws say users' submissions are protected? IANAL but I never heard of that. Competition, sure, but random unfavourable posting?
- OutOfHere 2y agoAfaik, every little such point contributes to a legal case by the government against the monopoly. It adds weight to the legal argument. One point by itself may not make a case, but in combination it could.
- praisewhitey 2y agoThe actions of private companies are a fair target for criticism.