YouTube bans Hate

[Peter1469]

YouTube bans Hate

Will YouTube focus on actual "hate" or will they focus on ideas that they do not agree with?

YouTube announced Wednesday it would ban videos promoting or glorifying racism and discrimination as well as those denying well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting.

The announcement by the Google-owned video-sharing platform was the latest of a series of tech industry moves to filter out hateful and violent content, which have spurred calls for tougher regulation.


"YouTube has always had rules of the road, including a longstanding policy against hate speech," a company statement said.

[Lummy]

Nazis.

[Chris]

Youtube was going to ban Louder with Crowder for what he's said debating a gay journalist, but decided instead to just punish him by refusing to let him sell t-shirts.

[Chris]

Nazis.

Private company. I might disagree with their decision but they have the right to do so.

[Lummy]

They may very well have that right, though at some point monopolies must be regulated, yes? Anyway, I didn't say they didn't. However, I'm not convinced of it, give the size and import of youtube. Same with FB. MO, I'm not a lawyer.

[Lummy]

It's a Constitutional issue, and we should err on the side of the Constitution. Yes?

[Peter1469]

They may very well have that right, though at some point monopolies must be regulated, yes? Anyway, I didn't say they didn't. However, I'm not convinced of it, give the size and import of youtube. Same with FB. MO, I'm not a lawyer.

The DoJ has opened an Anti-Trust investigation into at least one of the big tech companies. They do run the risk of being broken up, or regulated more like public utilities.

[Chris]

They may very well have that right, though at some point monopolies must be regulated, yes? Anyway, I didn't say they didn't. However, I'm not convinced of it, give the size and import of youtube. Same with FB. MO, I'm not a lawyer.

The only reason I can think of regulating a monopoly is it harms people because it monopolizes a good or service. But people have many choices for publishing and viewing videos and those who do agree to the company's rules, just like you agree to forum rules when joining.

[Standing Wolf]

It's a Constitutional issue, and we should err on the side of the Constitution. Yes?

How on Earth is it a "Constitutional issue"?

[Chris]

It's a Constitutional issue, and we should err on the side of the Constitution. Yes?

The Constitution protects the rights of the people against government interference.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This is a private matter. The government is not interfering, nor should it.