[krapp]

>The idea that everytime someone has a remotely controversial idea, they have to setup an internet video company with global reach in order to propagate said idea is ridiculous.

This isn't an idea that anyone is actually proposing to you, it's a strawman of your own making. The picture you're trying to paint whereby it's almost impossible for anyone to spread their ideas on the internet without Youtube's consent doesn't remotely correspond to reality. Every website has global reach, and plenty of controversial content has been spread on the internet in text form. You don't need video to propagate controversial ideas, but even then, video distribution existed on the internet before youtube. Filesharing and torrent sites exist, as do other streaming platforms which also have a global reach.

>They provided one in the belief that the public actually favors censorship!

The public does favor censorship. Free speech absolutism, to the degree of allowing even fraudulent and hateful speech to proliferate without check or consequence, is a minority view.

[jeegsy]

I wasn't trying to create a strawman, I only described things the way I did as a shorthand due to my belief that it was obvious to all the outsized role that youtube plays in public discourse. Just as was said on another informative thread I saw recently on HN, your facts (torrents, filesharing, non-neccesity of video etc) are correct but irrelevant.

> Free speech absolutism, to the degree of allowing even fraudulent and hateful speech to proliferate without check or consequence, is a minority view.

I appreciate your illustrating what an actual strawman looks like.

[krapp]

>Just as was said on another informative thread I saw recently on HN, your facts (torrents, filesharing, non-neccesity of video etc) are correct but irrelevant.

So you're simply refusing to acknowledge anything which contradicts your narrative.

Well, good to know there's no point in continuing this conversation with you further. Good day.