[that_guy_iain]

The courts do? And so far they haven't produced any evidence and they get flung out of every court.

On COVID, every country on the planet agrees. The scientists have spoken. The guy who thinks the royal family are lizards should not be considered even remotely reliable.

[maxk42]

Yes! The courts do. And this is going to court now. Google is not and should not be the arbiter of truth.

[metamet]

It's gone to the courts dozens of times already. Just because they continue to fruitlessly file suits doesn't mean that it is actually ongoing.

[Ekaros]

And just because courts decide something, doesn't mean they follow the truth...

[djsumdog]

Yep, just look at the recent series "Ourcry" about a kid who served 6 years and was then exonerated for wrongful conviction.

Or look at the Buck decision, a SCOTUS case that lead to forced sterilization.

Or look at the SCOTUS decision that led to Japanese internment camps.

Oh and both of those decisions .. based on Jacobson. Contrary to what the media tells you, in Jacobson, they never forced him to take the vaccination, only pay the $5 fine. But that decision led to Buck and Manzanar.

[that_guy_iain]

It has basically already been to court several times and been flung out repeatedly. With lawyers stating they have nothing to present. There is a certain point where we need to own up and remember saying Biden rigged the election is slander and YouTube is well within it's right not to host it.

[ineedasername]

You're looking at this through a lens of "fairness". It doesn't have to be fair. Google doesn't have to decide to either let no lies through, or let all lies through.

It's their platform, their property, they are allowed to do with it as they will. Just like a newspaper doesn't have to print every letter sent in by a reader, or every ad someone wants printed. (This later example is something I have experience with: I was the editor of a college newspaper targeted by a white-supremacist holocaust-denying group that wanted me to print their anti-Semitic ads. I didn't print them)

No one is entitled to the amplification of their views that these platforms make possible. They may be platforms that are publicly accessible, but they are privately owned & operated, and I think it would be a serious blow to the concept of private property to essentially impose forced speech on them.

There are plenty of other platforms that will let someone run anything they want through them. Sure, they're not as big and don't have the audience that Google does, but again: no one is entitled to that Freedom of speech doesn't require anyone to force others to repeat that speech.

[buzzerbetrayed]

So we're only allowed to talk about what the courts deem appropriate? And people are ok with this? Screw that.

[that_guy_iain]

No, you're allowed to talk about whatever but people think YouTube has a responsibility to stop the spread of things that have been shown to be false and of which there is zero evidence dispite lots of searching for evidence.

[odessacubbage]

so oj didn't do it?

that's a relief.

[marksbrown]

There are no perfect solutions involving humans and you know that. Democracy is famously described as the worst system except every other.