I was reading about this, and almost all the posts I found were people cheering the ban. Is it that one-sided now? Has the other view been completely censored?
Even the Libertarians were saying "Well, YouTube is a private company, they can do whatever they want." The problem with that line of reasoning is that, for 99%+ of the people, if you aren't on Twitter/Google/FaceBook, you don't exist.
You can say "Well, make your own website.", but they even have an answer for that. You'll get banned from Paypal, credit card processing, hosts, and domain registrars. Also, the network effect favoring the incumbents is HUGE.
Also, YouTube is (I believe) still not profitable. It's subsidized by Google's other revenue. If you pay your own video hosting costs, the $$$$ will get to you quickly.
Yeah, I could stop using Twitter/Reddit/YouTube, but that's cutting myself off from 99%+ of the stuff that's out there.
Personally, I found Stefan Molyneux too tiresome to listen to. He'll spend 2 hours on a video when the idea could be explained in 3 minutes. I agree with things like Taxation is Theft and the non-aggression principle, but I don't have the time to listen to him for hours a day.
What's rule 240? Do you mean section 230 safe harbor provision? That's what makes companies like Google/Facebook/Twitter not legally responsible for what the users post, BUT at the same time has enough loopholes to allow political censorship.
Donald Trump tried to remove section 230 protection via executive order, but I'm not sure he will win in court.
Now he can come to Censored.tv and make a new version of the odd couple with Jim Goad.
I was reading about this, and almost all the posts I found were people cheering the ban. Is it that one-sided now? Has the other view been completely censored?
Even the Libertarians were saying "Well, YouTube is a private company, they can do whatever they want." The problem with that line of reasoning is that, for 99%+ of the people, if you aren't on Twitter/Google/FaceBook, you don't exist.
You can say "Well, make your own website.", but they even have an answer for that. You'll get banned from Paypal, credit card processing, hosts, and domain registrars. Also, the network effect favoring the incumbents is HUGE.
Also, YouTube is (I believe) still not profitable. It's subsidized by Google's other revenue. If you pay your own video hosting costs, the $$$$ will get to you quickly.
Yeah, I could stop using Twitter/Reddit/YouTube, but that's cutting myself off from 99%+ of the stuff that's out there.
Personally, I found Stefan Molyneux too tiresome to listen to. He'll spend 2 hours on a video when the idea could be explained in 3 minutes. I agree with things like Taxation is Theft and the non-aggression principle, but I don't have the time to listen to him for hours a day.
What's rule 240? Do you mean section 230 safe harbor provision? That's what makes companies like Google/Facebook/Twitter not legally responsible for what the users post, BUT at the same time has enough loopholes to allow political censorship.
Donald Trump tried to remove section 230 protection via executive order, but I'm not sure he will win in court.