As a private company, YouTube can choose what it wants to host and/or promote. No one is preventing the purveyors of toxic videos from making and distributing them on their own.
You're right, Youtube isn't forced to host the works of this horrid rule-breaker. They choose the position of platforming him and profiting off of him however.
The idea a private company should be forced to use their resources to host content they deem harmful to humanity seems obviously wrong. Of course they should have the right.
YouTube is not a public service.
"Free speech" does not mean you also are entitled to a platform and an audience.
The company doesn't find anything objectionable. It's the Who (a political org that has nothing to do with science) that is dictating what YouTube should do. YouTube and other technocrats believe that can tell people how and what they should think. With that being said, forcing a private company with state violence is not good either, unfortunately there's no magic wand to wave and reset everything. We shouldn't be pragmatic, but we have to be practical.
What mega-corporatio is telling you what's OK to see and hear?
There are billions of videos hosted outside of YouTube. YouTube is not trying to get them taken down.
Why don't you complain when your favorite news channel fails to include a Communist guest pundit? Because it's their medium and they have editorial control.
Ah well... Youtube is a private platform. They are free to remove any video for any reason or no reason at all. If you don't like it, you are free to create your own YouTube. They are not obligated to let you use their website to spread your ideas.
It's about time people realize that platforms like YouTube are private publishers. They have full discretion to remove or editorialize content, and there's no expectation of free speech.
Expecting YouTube to keep hosting something because of First Amendment rights is as absurd as expecting a printing press to print your pamphlets for free.
YouTube is a private company, not a public service. Anti-vax is not a protected class of people, and so there is no law that says YouTube cannot discriminate against them.
As a company, they've decided to take this path. They don't have to justify it.
If that makes you angry, boycott them. Don't conduct business with them, which includes watching their content and ads.
And if you think that YouTube is large enough and a big enough monopoly that it should be treated as a public service and subject to the rules that apply to public services, then either nationalize it so that it is, or break it up so that there's competition in the market.
YouTube is not a monopoly and you do not have any right to any kind of creators or audience at all.
If McDonald's mistreats you, and every other restaurant tastes like garbage to you: tough titty, but that doesn't provide grounds for the govt. to regulate McDonald's.
I genuinely don't get it. YouTube, a private entity and not a government entity, is saying they don't want certain content on their platform. This is not the end of your free speech. This isn't really even a movement away from free speech. It's YouTube exercising their right to freedom of speech by not allowing what they believe to be harmful or disagreeable on their platform. They already do this with other categories of thing. This is no different.
You are more than able to start your own company and let whatever you want on that site. Or just go to your local city center with a megaphone and give people your thoughts - perfectly legal.
If YouTube is THAT essential to getting your views heard, you need to take a lesson from business - don't rely on anyone else for critical infrastructure.
A private company shouldn't get to pick and choose what opinions are valid. YouTube is not an arbiter of truth, and there is no universal law that says YouTube's moderators will always be correct. As a massive corporation, when they decide to take the path of banning critics of Google, pro-Palestinian activists, feminists and so on, the other companies will follow suit. They don't have to justify it, because almost no-one will care.
If that makes you angry, go convince people that vaccines are safe and effective. You use the internet to out-argue anti-vaxxers, which should be easy because they're so wrong and ideological.
And if you think that YouTube is large enough and a big enough monopoly that it should be treated as a public service and subject to the rules that apply to public services, then either nationalize it so that it is, or break it up so that there's competition in the market.
The government isn't censoring anyone. These people can just post their video on a different site or their own site. YouTube is free. You get what you pay for. If you don't like it use a different site or just pony up some of your own money and host it yourself.
agreed - but what this comes down to is YouTube sells ads and advertisers only pay for safe spaces. Advertisers do not want your commentary or your dislikes. YouTube is not a public forum, it is a publisher with editorial discretion.
YouTube is not preventing anyone's free speech. Everyone, including the plaintiffs, are free to say anything they want, regardless of any YouTube policy. YouTube is merely not obligated to provide a platform for everyone. People can go elsewhere and say exactly what they would have said on YouTube.
reply