3 ms·
> The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement. The State forced their hands here. Comply and let certain favored creators back, or else
by Onavo 1y ago
> The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement.
The State forced their hands here. Comply and let certain favored creators back, or else they might find themselves subject to political prosecution.
- deaux 1y agoThey didn't force anything, they gave them a choice, and Google consciously and actively chose to make this decision. AP News chooses to still call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico; a different choice from the outlets that no longer do. The New York Times, NBC News, the Hill and CNN chose to rather have their Pentagon access revoked; a different choice than the one made by New York Post, One America News Network, Breitbart News Network, HuffPost News and others. It's important to keep repeating this. Companies, organizations and individuals all have choices. Not every one of them makes the same choice given the same situation - in fact, they make opposite choices.
- hugey010 1y agoYour second example of a choice is a consequence of a choice. Those companies chose not to comply with new reporting rules which resulted in having their Pentagon access revoked. This is an important distinction when given "choices" that aren't really choices but mandates. As far as how this YouTube scenario is different, people can host their content elsewhere, but there's only one Pentagon in the US.