YouTube suspends channel of an Odessa-based Chinese programmer, citizen journalist

Radio Free Asia ^ | 2022.04.05 | Yitong Wu, Chingman and Wang Yun

[roving]

They could show video and you would still call it fake news

[Wonder Warthog]

"So you’ve actually seen video evidence that the Russians are the perpetrators of said violence? Because I’ve yet to see it."

Then your eyes are shut tight. EVERY video coming out of Ukraine shows massive damage to civilian infrastructure, including those shown on local news here in San Antonio. I doubt Ukrainians did that to their own property...

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Zhang Fei.

[bobbo666]

You regularly post on YouTube and then commit two cardinal sins:?
1.criticize the owners (CCP)
2.violate YTube terms of service that consider words to be violence.

What a maroon.

[DiogenesLamp]

What about when FR does it? They censured a post yesterday

FR is a small club. When they start carrying millions of users traffic, then it will be time to see them as a mass communication system for public traffic.

Right now they are still just a club.

[semimojo]

The "private" business becomes the Government's proxy and will impose the governments' will while pretending it is their own.

Your approach eliminates all pretense and explicitly lets the government dictate private entities’ speech.

The government forcing someone to speak words they don’t want to is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

If you want to nationalize a swath of private industry, fine. Convince Congress to buy them at fair market rates and raise the tax revenue to do so.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your approach eliminates all pretense and explicitly lets the government dictate private entities’ speech.

You keep saying that but it does not comport with the facts. Speech made by others is *NOT* speech made by a private company which is simply a carrier for public speech.

The private company is free to say anything it likes, but what it should *NEVER* be allowed to do is control mass communications of public speech by others.

The government forcing someone to speak words they don’t want to is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Again, you are deliberately misstating the fundamental argument here. Nobody is forcing a company to say anything. What is being demanded is that telephone companies and their like not be allowed to cut off *OTHER* people's speech that happens to go through their communications infrastructure.

My position is simple. If you don't want to allow the free exchange of ideas on your communications infrastructure, you should not be permitted or tolerated to *OWN* communications infrastructure.

[semimojo]

Nobody is forcing a company to say anything.

Of course they are. A private entity is being forced to publish statements they don’t want to.

Your argument is no public forum can be moderated. You, realizing that’s an indefensible position, try to obfuscate it by making up categories like “mass communications companies” that you then de-facto define as those who’s politics you disagree with.

Or you try to say FR is a “club”, yet Facebook, which has much stricter admission requirements and where all users agree to be bound by their terms, is not.

My position is simple. If you don't want to allow the free exchange of ideas on your communications infrastructure, you should not be permitted or tolerated to *OWN* communications infrastructure.

Unless, of course, that communications infrastructure is owned by Jim.

How do you feel about Gettr, Parler, Truth Social, etc., etc. They all moderate content. Do you want them to be nationalized as well?