Wow! Montana AG reads youtube the riot act, brilliantly.

Jared reads the whole letter out loud. It's magnificent.

 

Self serving publicity stunt that has no teeth.

 

Yup.....classic listen to what I say don't look at what I actually do.

I freely admit I don't know their AG's stance on things. But it is quite common for a politician to say one thing and do another.

 

Talk is cheap and easy. If the policy they support or how they vote that tells the real story.

As I can get this in before the lock that is all too common here.....

These people have a habit of.....well.....lies. They tell you one thing then do another. People grow and change, it is only the fool that does not change position on things, everyone with a brain does it. So the real question is have they really changed or are they just moving to where the wind blows. A great many people are not happy about what one side is selling and changing their minds. I could go on but why, it will get deleted.

 

Tulsi’s voting record doesn’t mirror.with what she now claims.

 

True, and I like to give them a chance, lets see if your money is where your mouth is.

 

Google is a private sector company. They can remove any content they see fit. Members have no right to free speech on that platform, just like we do not have the right to post whatever we want to post on this very forum. There is nothing anyone, including the Montana AG, can do about it. His threats hold no water.

 

She's no longer in office. I think I saw she got hired to be a commentator on Fox.

 

Tulsi has a Podcast now. She is also a frequent commentator on Fox News. Don't know if she gets paid but I would guess she receives some type of stipend.

 

She struck a deal this year with Foxnews, and she gets a check.

 

She already has. And I agree with other posters. There isn’t a conspiracy by those advocating Second Amendment rights, including Tulsi.

 

YouTube has no obligation to host any particular video nor an obligation not to. The Montana AG must not be much of an attorney if he doesn't realize this basic fact. If YT doesn't want to host 80% videos then they don't have to, just like if they should one day decide not to host videos of same sex weddings.

This is the worst sort of crass political grandstanding. "My freedom is a wonderful thing that must be cherished. Your freedom is a dangerous thing that must be tightly regulated."

 

Almost, I suggest you look into the differences between forum and publisher. Places like this site are a forum. There are established rules of conduct that are in theory applied evenly across the board, we all know that is not the case. The same is said for sites like twitter. The "legal" biggie is that the "host" of the forum is not responsible for content on their site, they just provide the means for different ideas to be tossed out for public debate. This is how some of the real wacko sites stay alive, they don't do anything but provide the "forum" for exchange of ideas.

The "town square" thing is something we have seen quite a bit lately with Musk and Twitter. That is to be a forum, a neutral ground for the exchange of ideas. We all know just how even handed that place was.

In a place like Youtube they want to be that however they also have a firm hold on quite a few things that make them a publisher. They pay their "content creators" is a REAL biggie. That makes you a publisher, and in a great many places that puts you in the world of an employer. Giving down to evals on your content. This is why the huge suit in Germany you never hear anything about. All around "hiding" some content while pushing others goes against some pretty big laws with some pretty steep fines in the EU. Same laws exist here in the states but no one wants to grand stand on that yet, they know where the bread is buttered.

It is quite complex. But the protections on the "host" are what most sites like this live on. They are "not responsible" for anything that is said on here, just like places like stormfront or any of the other crazy places.

 

I wonder what people would think if phone companies, which are private sector companies, were to sensor, in real time, with some sort of AI, speech which they find inappropriate.

Maybe interrupt or stop conversations people may be having about guns or the 2A?

That would stink.

 

First, YouTube doesn't pay every who uploads videos to their platform. You have to meet a particular set of requirements beforehand. Most of the firearm and other type of content is demonertized as are some entire channels as well.

Next, I am not 100% sure that forum and other social media platforms can NOT be held liable for what other's posted on their platforms. Under a few circumstances, I believe they can be.

Fine. Let's call them publishers. A publisher has the right to pick and choose what they want or don't want to publish as do magazines and newspapers. Radio stations, TV, and streaming services choose which ads and content they allow on their platforms. All of the above aren't obligated to allow any and every type of ad or content.

I am sure that we can give Congress more power and ask them to start legislating social media, but that's a slippery slope that's going to end badly as all thing do when government get involved. Several bills have already been introduced to police "hate speech" and "misinformation," and we all know what that entails.... I rather deal with YouTube's and other social media's bias as is, and keep the government bureaucrats out of it and from getting involved.

YouTube should have the freedom to allow whatever they want on their servers. There are other websites where content creators can and do upload their firearm related videos (Full30 and GunStreamer).

 

First they do pay some, and that is enough. And yes you are not sure, I suggest some research so you are.

If we call them publishers then they are liable for the content in their publications, be it paper or online. Laws are very slow at keeping up with new tech, but they are there (for the most part) now. This is why news papers get law suits filed against them for things they print, sometimes the author is also listed but not always, lawyers know where the deep pockets are.

You are again correct in a publisher has the wright to pick and choose, however a forum does not. This was the sticking point with Twitter (the new town square) it was billed as a free and open forum but they killed off content they did not like. They want the power of a publisher, and the protection of hosting a public forum.

It will not take any (really) new powers, existing laws are being changed to include digital content and not just print. Same basic thing happened with Radio in the 20's and TV in the 50's.

Shame this thread is over due for a lock, I think people could really learn something here provided the posts of all are "allowed" to stay. And this place being a forum is "allowed" to do that. I don't like some of their decisions but there house their rules. And that is really the way it should be, and lead (as I understand things) to the founding of this site.

 

Private sector companies do not get to "do whatever they want", and anyone that thinks that has clearly never worked in one. There are thousands upon thousands of regulations and laws that apply to every company operating in the US.
Montana is no stranger to the dangers of corporations controlling what is "allowed" opinion, on the contrary it has a long history of such issues.
So no, this hand waving dismissal of the issue as "muh private companies" is not going to keep flying. There are ways to curb the abuse of monopoly power, and the more creative legal minds will continue to find more.
Perhaps Google would like to loose access to fiber transmission across Montana until they adopt more 2A friendly policies? Yeah, there are ways to get their attention.

 

Phone companies use public airwaves and/or interstate easements in order to conduct their business. They are regulated by public service commissions. In exchange for this special treatment they agree to abide by set standards of privacy and access. In essence they enjoy government-enforced monopolies in exchange for following the rules and making a regulated amount of profit.

There is no equivalent protection for YouTube. Anyone can start a video sharing website and host all the gun videos they want. It’s really not the same.

 

That is the usual doublethink line. But it has nothing to do with reality. The same argument made a century ago would have been "Standard Oil is not a monopoly, anyone can open a refinery and sell all the gas they want"!
Yeah, not buying that. YouTube only exists because of enormous investments in technology and infrastructure that came out of taxpayer dollars. It is a functional monopoly, starting another site solves nothing since it won't have the traffic. The problem with websites like Youtube is that they are natural monopoly goods, not private goods. Thus, regulation is called for. If that regulation says they have to treat 2A videos like everything else so much the better. And no, I'm not going to cry over how hurt the Silicon Valley billionaire crowd is by that. Whatever means the Montana AG can dream up to go after them for discriminating against the 2A should be counted as a blessing.

 

Bull.

Try it.