An open platform is like a bulletin board.
Anyone can put up a poster on a bulletin board. The person who actually built the board isn’t responsible for anything that is posted on it. All they did is use some carpentry skills to make a board.
Now, if the board maker decides to put a glass panel over it, and start reviewing what goes up on it, he isn’t operating an open platform. He’s now a publisher. He is now responsible for what people are putting up there.
So, if YouTube wants to be an open platform, great. They can do that. If YouTube wants to be a publisher, that’s fine too. But there are consequences. They’re now liable for everything that is posted on YouTube. *They’ll* be up for all the copyright issues, *they’ll* be responsible for incitement charges.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/599253788926148609/601972006908461057/syria.gif

well it is the banks not the cc companies

google takes gov money for defence projects

who doesn't?

that could still be covered under anti-trust legistation, if you have companies price fixing

it's not price fixing, they're service fixing

someone has to do the work for the gov?

deplatforming isn't price fixing

you want the gov to do the work THEEMSELVES?

preference isnt discrimination you dang dinguses

it literally is

yes preference is discrimination

i discriminate by preference

else youll also have to defend trannies saying not liking dick is also discrimination

but its not necessarly bigorty

i prefer white meat

but it's not like oh maybe I'll give the tranny a go this time

The fuck is being talked about here/

you have an absolute preference/discrimination of no trannies

In short, any private business, including social media companies, have the right to ban anyone, for any reason, at any time.
But, they’ll no longer be open platforms, they’ll be publishers. And they haven’t really thought through what that means.

yes, no trannies; no small tities

no communists

intent matters and generally these situations should be left to be solved by the individuals persons

there is a level at which these companies get too big and do require some govt intervention

the trick is determining at what point

intent cannot be proven

Drawing lines is good

if its a small business they should have maximum leeway to discriminate

cause people commit the same action with various different intentions

No. The government should not interfere. The free market will win out eventually. Competition is the answer.

no

anarco market?

no there needs to be some regulation

The gubment should interfere to allow health market competition

i love my boy ben "dont sue the jew" shapiro but the free market is not a clean and pure entitiy. people can and will always take advantage of it

Some, yes. Not always, and Not in this instance.

I'm very free market capitalist but there needs to be moral and legal component of the market

and before anyone counters 'intent cannot be proven' i will remind you of what a judge I once dated told me to my distain, "Since when is the court concerned about the TRUTH? it's about doubt..."

The free market decided it wasn't all it's cranked up to be and diversified.

the court IS about doubt, though i do doubt the part of the story saying you dated someone <:smugon:512048583806025739>