You realize this legal argument is about the communications decency act? If you want the Wild West, you’re forcing YouTube (and presumably other websites) against the will of their owners to run pornography. Are you really asking for that? That’s the strangest use of big government power I’ve ever heard of.
Shellenberger is still a “believer”, but no longer an alarmist. too much for Forbes to handle:
Tweet: Mike Shellenberger
Forbes has censored my article.
I have reposted it here:
On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare
30 Jun 2020
Tweet: 5h ago: Mike Shellenberger
Thanks to everyone who expressed their concerns
I am happy to report that I will continue writing for Forbes on energy and environment in the future
And I’m happy to report that I will publish my first-person and non-energy-related articles
@Quillette and other publications
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1277611390195216390
FULL TEXT:
28 Jun: Marketcap: On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare
by Michael Shellenberger
https://news.marketcap.com/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/
> If you want the Wild West, you’re forcing YouTube (and presumably other websites) against the will of their owners to run pornography <
You’re assuming a bit too much there. Or perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. By “Wild West” I meant minimum censorship, and great freedom. Not no censorship at all. Even the Wild West had sheriffs!
As it is, YouTube can kick you off their site for saying even the most innocent non-PC things. I recently read that a chess analysis guy got a YouTube time out. He still can’t figure out why. Maybe the YouTube computer censors flagged him for saying “white moves first”.
A Wild West version of YouTube would scale back those computer censors. No one would argue for no censorship at all. Gotta have a sheriff. Just not a hyper-sensitive one.