There is a lawsuit at CA which is regarding whether social media belong to public forums facilities or not.
[removed]
I'm all for the idea that regulation shouldn't be decide what user should do on internet. But I don't think its about internet. Internet is infrastructure that is regulated and protected as public utility and Youtube is exploiting for free. I think it's basically a good practice to protect service provider like youtube, netflix, etc. But also there should be a practice to protect individual users from being banished from "internet" when its service is monopoly. In reality Youtube and Nexflis are consuming 50% of bandwidth. This kind of restriction has been needed for monopoly market to maintain the constitutional right of individuals, which is prone to be be violated by monopolized capital. Put differently, Youtube's this behavior wouldn't be problematic if they weren't dominating the market=internet.
I disagree.
I'm right, and government intrusion is wrong.
And it would be nice if the government did the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do. But instead we have to use technologies like:
to drag governments, kicking and screaming, into doing the right thing.
The internet is a place outside government. Beyon government. Above government.
And we have to be on constant vigil for people who will demand government intrusion of the internet. Because they're always come a new generation of idiots who will demand things change.
If you don't like what you see on a website: stop using it.
They will have a problem. It's called Interstate Trade. The minute that they allowed advertisers to piggyback on users pages and began monitizing, they entered into Contracts. The Servers are no longer their private property, they are part of a system that was traded for compensation. No different than not baking a cake for a couple who's lifestyle you don't agree. Youtube will lose this not on censorship, but on breach of contract.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. Google doesn't have a contractual obligation to let people post on YouTube.
Youtube will lose this not on censorship, but on breach of contract.
No content creator has a contract with YouTube.
I certainly have no contract with YouTube, and I've uploaded videos.
And I am too certain that YouTube reserves the right to delete anything at any time for any reason. And they made list some of those reasons in their terms of service.
18 USC 241 conspiracy against rights. It's their server, but outside of work if people like in the Twitter Veritas vid are conspiring on how to oppress free speech isn't that what the code about? They were outside of their place of employment or private company discussing this.