[krapp]

A code of conduct doesn't have the force of law to begin with, in what way is Youtube having one independent of US law?

And if you're suggesting every instance of moderation on Youtube's platform should be a civil or criminal matter, and that a court or some other agent of the state should decide on each matter rather than Google, how would that not still be censorship?

[downerending]

The point isn't that moderation should be a crime or tort. The point is that exercising editorial control for political reasons should exclude them from 230 protections. That is, they'd be considered a publication rather than an open forum.

[guscost]

It would be censorship only with the consent of the governed, as it should be.

Also folks, keep in mind that I am absolutely not saying that the government should regulate every video on YouTube, I am only saying that YouTube should lose its special privileges if it wants to play that game itself. It is a critically-important distinction that I feel is being missed here.

[krapp]

And if the government decides Youtube has to censor anti CCP comments, you'd be fine with that?

[guscost]

No, I would vote those morons out of office. As it stands I don't have nearly enough money to vote the Alphabet CEO out of office.

[krapp]

You probably don't have enough money to vote a government out of office, either.

[guscost]

Unfortunately I don't, but I hope you understand the meaning behind this facetiousness.