He has 130k YouTube subscribers and who knows how many views.
He's monetized his content there and I suspect it's a big chunk of the revenue he earns.
If you take away 230 and can now sue YouTube for anything Whittle says he'll be dropped.
The fact that he has billwhittle.com also totally obviates the arguments about Google/YouTube's monopoly as well as censorship complaints.
No one is threatening his ability to speak via his own infrastructure.
The question is what will happen to YouTube if they lose their 230 protection. The answer is they'd be sued out of existence in a month.
And this benefits anyone how, exactly?
I'd say that's incentive enough to stop censoring Conservatives and actually become what they claim to be, a platform.
Wouldn't that be great? But it's much more likely that they would begin to tightly curate their content and only broadcast stuff that they can control and deem safe.
People have this naive notion that we can take away Google's private property but they'll still maintain and operate it so we can harvest ad dollars from our content.
What about the fact that they've invested billions of dollars of private investor's money in a platform based on terms of service that all the users have agreed to?
You want to nationalize the company because you don't like their politics?
What's the principle that says YouTube has to carry everything but Jim can still zot people?
Don't tell me YouTube is a monopoly - it's not even close (see billwhittle.com).
He has addressed that and that's not a video platform. His income is from subscribers that support him. Steven Crowder also received more subscribers after YouTube demonetized him. People will pay for content until YouTube bans them for specious reasons from the platform and as we have seen, Vimeo isn't an alternative as it is also owned by a screaming liberal.
Wouldn't that be great? But it's much more likely that they would begin to tightly curate their content and only broadcast stuff that they can control and deem safe.
That's what they are doing now, based on political views.
The bottom line here is that these tech giants either play by the rules or suffer the consequences.
Jim isn't claiming to be a 230 platform and has been sued.
Q: The question is what will happen to YouTube if they lose their 230 protection. The answer is they’d be sued out of existence in a month.
A: And this benefits anyone how, exactly?
**************
I don’t believe that you’re that stupid so you must be a troll.