YouTube suspends, demonetizes OANN

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

All news should be approved by the government.

We have always been at war with Eurasia!

P.S. The Fairness Doctrine worked just fine.

[John Dule]

It's time to treat Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. like publishers.  Remove their protections from lawsuits if they are going to deplatform people and institutions; let them be treated like the publishers they are.

No website owes anyone a "platform."

Forcing websites to host certain kinds of content sounds like SOCIALISM.

"Platform" is not a literal term, but it means the place (even in cyberspace) where persons can project ideas to large numbers of others.

Just who, exactly, are Dorsey, Zuckerberg, etc. to determine ideas "false" and censor them?

They invented the sites and they are free to do whatever they want with them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's time to treat Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. like publishers.  Remove their protections from lawsuits if they are going to deplatform people and institutions; let them be treated like the publishers they are.

No website owes anyone a "platform."

Forcing websites to host certain kinds of content sounds like SOCIALISM.

"Platform" is not a literal term, but it means the place (even in cyberspace) where persons can project ideas to large numbers of others.

Just who, exactly, are Dorsey, Zuckerberg, etc. to determine ideas "false" and censor them?

They invented the sites and they are free to do whatever they want with them.

Then let them be free like publishers and strip them of their Section 230 protections.

[President Johnson]

The Deep State and liberal Social media hacks have won again. Sad!

[John Dule]

It's time to treat Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. like publishers.  Remove their protections from lawsuits if they are going to deplatform people and institutions; let them be treated like the publishers they are.

No website owes anyone a "platform."

Forcing websites to host certain kinds of content sounds like SOCIALISM.

"Platform" is not a literal term, but it means the place (even in cyberspace) where persons can project ideas to large numbers of others.

Just who, exactly, are Dorsey, Zuckerberg, etc. to determine ideas "false" and censor them?

They invented the sites and they are free to do whatever they want with them.

Then let them be free like publishers and strip them of their Section 230 protections.

That doesn't logically follow. Like, at all.

[SteveRogers]

It's time to treat Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. like publishers.  Remove their protections from lawsuits if they are going to deplatform people and institutions; let them be treated like the publishers they are.

No website owes anyone a "platform."

Forcing websites to host certain kinds of content sounds like SOCIALISM.

"Platform" is not a literal term, but it means the place (even in cyberspace) where persons can project ideas to large numbers of others.

Just who, exactly, are Dorsey, Zuckerberg, etc. to determine ideas "false" and censor them?

They invented the sites and they are free to do whatever they want with them.

Then let them be free like publishers and strip them of their Section 230 protections.

Fuzzy, if I open up my house for regular dinner parties open to the general public where a spirited exchange of ideas is encouraged, does that make me liable for what the guests say on my private property? Surely you’d agree it does not. By making these gatherings open to all comers, have I forfeited my right to eject particularly vile individuals who refuse to follow my house rules from my property in the future? Of course not! Does the answer somehow change if my house becomes the most popular venue in town? Would your logic hold that there’s a point at which the government must step in and regulate my private property like a public utility to prevent me from “censoring” people?

[WD]

The Deep State and liberal Social media hacks have won again. Sad!

The Deep States always wins.

[It’s so Joever]

Cry conservatives.

[DrScholl]

YouTube has terms and conditions, so when you sign up you are agreeing to abide by them.

[Former President tack50]

I am somewhat sympathetic to the "symptom" that Fuzzy describes of uneven censorship and what not; as weall as to the broader arguments made by conservatives about "big tech".

There are certainly lots of platforms out there that do indeed have de facto monopolies in certain aspects of the tech industry, or that are "too big to fail, too big to exist" to borrow another term. The biggest one that comes to mind actually would be Youtube, where there is no other reasonable alternative if you want an audience to watch your videos; but there are lots of "too big to exist" tech companies out there. Google and Facebook should have never been allowed to get that big, and should be broken up.

However, the "solution" that Fuzzy describes is is absolutely non-sensical. If I am not mistaken, said section basically says that web hosts do not have to be responsible for whatever users post in them right?

Well, if you abolish said section, you basically kill the internet as we know it.

Even in the best case scenario, what Fuzzy is imagining, it basically just means "4chan style rules" in all of the internet (and probably worse, even 4chan bans some people and topics!). The worst case scenario well, ends with everyone who has a website behind bars. Virginia and Dave included actually. (Could in fact have every American mod jailed!).

I am one of the people who is worried about tech monopolies; but that is not a solution at all. I do think there should be looser rules in general in the internet, but I don't know how governments can enforce that.

It is very hard, if not impossible, to balance taking out disinformation, allowing everyone fair access and taking out illegal content.