[starbugs]

Yeah, for sure. Call it freedom of information, add a little bit of common sense to it, and your argument renders itself completely invalid.

Google demonstrates that it doesn't follow a revenue driven agenda with these actions. It involves itself in selecting political views that it deems acceptable to influence the opinions of a world wide audience. It is large enough to take on a quasi governmental role. If it was just acting as a neutral platform, I would buy your argument, but it obviously doesn't.

The internet has driven the pareto distribution of attention to such extremes that we now are in this mess. There is no getting out of this by engaging in the hairsplitting of an old legal text.

[natex]

> Yeah, for sure. Call it freedom of information, add a little bit of common sense to it, and your argument renders itself completely invalid.

No it doesn't. Obviously you aren't grasping the concept of free speech (and its limits).

> Google demonstrates that it doesn't follow a revenue driven agenda with these actions. It involves itself in selecting political views that it deems acceptable to influence the opinions of a world wide audience.

As is its legal right to do so.

> It is large enough to take on a quasi governmental role. If it was just acting as a neutral platform, I would buy your argument, but it obviously doesn't.

"Quasi government" is a meaningless word and doesn't really help your argument. Why would it have to act as a neutral platform?

[starbugs]

Ok, I accept that you are not willing to look beyond the current state of legal affairs, regardless of whether Google/YouTube is so large it becomes an example of a de facto public space. And how to treat these kinds of platforms with regard to freedom of speech is an ongoing legal discussion — far from being over.

Let me make it simple for you: Sticking to your (in my opinion very limited) model of looking at the world, how do you make sure Google doesn't become a puppet of some government now or in the future? Do you really think the people in that organization are able to handle the amount of power they have over a reasonably long time without getting corrupted? Would it then fall into your narrow definition of freedom of speech?

Our current state of law is not equipped to deal with that kind of behemoth and needs to evolve.

Btw.: It would help your argument to avoid provocative statements like implying that I might not be grasping a concept. Your text looks like you are trying to defend a political position.