> This is not a court of law, Precisely. The DOJ makes an accusation and the party in question is immediately treated as radioactive. Youtube's excuse for cutt

> This is not a court of law, Precisely. The DOJ makes an accusation and the party in question is immediately treated as radioactive. Youtube's excuse for cutting them off ("coordinated influence operations") is so vague as to apply to almost any content ever posted by anyone. Every online post is "coordinated," in the sense that someone spent time and effort to get it into place. Every post which attempts to teach new information and/or sway an opinion is an "influence operation," in that they are attempting to get new/different information into peoples' minds. If _that's_ the excuse they're going to use then, for the sake of consistency, they need to excise some large majority of their content. Alternately (and preferably), they should find an excuse which isn't so nebulous. > I mean comparing what RT did with homeschooling material is not only a bad faith argument, it's downright insulting. i have no idea what an RT is, and don't know a single thing about the accused party in this case aside from the fact that "DOJ accuses so Youtube cancels." My point has nothing at all to do with them, per se. It is entirely about the hand-wavy excuse Youtube is using to cancel them (whoever they are and whatever they've done, none of which concern me). Please explain to us how schooling, as a whole, is _not_ (to use Youtube's term) a "coordinated influence operation." Ignore, if you will, the context of this particular usage by Youtube because this instance _is not the point_. The point is the overly-wide applicability of their excuse.