Now they demonized C&Rsenal.
Sounds to me they think they know better than we do and there needs to be another media outlet.
their platform, their rules.
But are they a platform or a publisher?
If you followed the Steven Crowder debacle you'd see that YouTube can't quite decide.
Does it have to, though? No one is forcing people to use youtube. If you want to discuss youtube as a monopoly, we can, but there is nothing that compels anyone to use or view it there, right?
Last edited:
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. YouTube is a business, that has the right to make their own decisions about how to run their business (within certain limits). We all support the Constitution, and that means that we support it even when we don't like a certain business, etc.
We have the right to watch or not watch. If a business begins to lose revenue, they may decide to change certain decisions, or not.
We cannot allow ourselves to become like the snowflakes, ranting against those things that we don't like.
The real issue is the YouTube has been caught time and time again bending (and breaking) their own rules. They issue vague policy statements and then fail to clarify what rules are being broken in these cases or even provide definitive examples of what broke the rules.
I get that it's "Their site, their rules", but it is very apparent that they have no interest in helping channels such as this figure out exactly what violated those rules. Not to mention they want the best of both worlds. One moment they claim they are a Publisher when it suits them and other times they are a Platform, trying to claim the protections of both but then avoiding the responsibilities of either one. You can't have it both ways.
And while there are alternative hosting sites, and it can be argued they are not technically a monopoly, they are the giant in this arena and no one else has even come close to competing. It's like your local public access station trying to compete with CBS on a national level.
I get that it's "Their site, their rules", but it is very apparent that they have no interest in helping channels such as this figure out exactly what violated those rules. Not to mention they want the best of both worlds. One moment they claim they are a Publisher when it suits them and other times they are a Platform, trying to claim the protections of both but then avoiding the responsibilities of either one. You can't have it both ways.
And while there are alternative hosting sites, and it can be argued they are not technically a monopoly, they are the giant in this arena and no one else has even come close to competing. It's like your local public access station trying to compete with CBS on a national level.
Again, so what? If it's that bad of a business practice, creators can stop uploading content and let viewers leave. Maybe youtube will suffer.
And tighten the laws if you don't like them playing both sides of the issues. But in terms of its own TOS, short of breaking a contract, i don't see why its not allowed to do what it does.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
"Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category."
The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption.
"Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category."
The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption.
Yes . . . I think it kinda does. The point is that there are specific FCC guidelines that apply to one (platform) or the other (publisher) . . . nobody is forced to use YouTube, but I don't need YouTube to determine what I can and can't view.
