I don't think that anyone is arguing that diddlers should be able to post their diddling videos.
The thing is, by accepting the narrow and pedantic view of free speech and defaulting to the "well, it is their site so its not illegal for them to censor" argument people are handing their ability to freely express themselves to compines who do, in fact, have a political agenda that they are activly pushing. To me, that seems like trading government control for corporate control and that is not a good look.
Of course nobody (well, barely anybody anyways, im sure there is SOMEONE) is arguing that. But if someone happens to upload something of that nature to youtube and they publish it - doesnt matter if they delete it 3 seconds later - youtube is the one responsible if they assume the role of a publisher which they do if they editorialise i.e. delete content which isnt clearly illegal. That is according to US law anyways. And since they do business in the US......
Haha well there is always a handful of wackjobs but no one that anyone takes seriously would be more accurate, I suppose.
However, this does not justify the censorship of political speech which is the actual issue here. They will try to point to things like that as their shield but this is really about silencing anyone who does not fit into google et al's vision for the future. We have seen that vision and it is not a good one. It protects people like this racist NY times author while harmless neckbeards like TJ are censored. It presents the estabmishment's view and hides others so that people cannot form an accurate picture of reality. It creates racial and social division that keeps the population too weak to stand against the opressive systems of control that we are all subject to. The list could go on but you know what I am getting at. If you are a regular person who isn't super rich or extremely well connected these compinies are not your friend and I don't like putting my trust in people who are not my friends.
You misunderstood what i was saying. See, internet plattforms are immune from being prosecuted for user created content - just so long as they act as plattform. If, however, they editorialise,if they delete content which is not illegal or violates crystal clearly formulated and strictly enforced (and with the mass of content they get, they are unable to strictly enforce anything) TOS, they are legaly to be considered publishers. Similar to me writing to a newspaper editor, in publishing what i send them, it is their speech then, they become responsible for every illegal video and illegal comment posted on their site according to US law.
Haha I may well have. This is still the pre-coffee part of my day lol.
I reread your first comment and I see what you are gitting at now. That may be a fruitful way to press the issue legally.
The thing that disturbes me is the willingness to accept this corporate censorship among the population. I expect these compinies to try to fuck us but right now there are a ton of people who are fucking themselves for the sake of hurting individuals that they have disagreements with.