[sennight]

> I just also happen to believe that youtube should get to decide what they distribute...

Sort of like a publisher, right? Well that sounds totally reasonable for a publisher to... oh. Might wanna rethink that one - it would be a shame to lose that sweet sweet platform protection.

[rosndo]

In a hypothetical world where you’re right, why would that not kill sites like HN? And if it would, is that a good outcome?

[effingwewt]

How is a very real situation at all hypothetical? Because it goes against the narrative you're screaming?

Pick one. You are a publisher or a platform. The days of companies having their cake and eating it too need to be over.

Also, HN's an aggregator, at least come with legit comparisons if you want to even try and make a salient point, for once.

And if getting rid of HN meant all of this shit would end, I'd forget it existed. Youtube made itself a lynch-pin of society by begging us to join and host our videos in the beginning, then they got so big they felt they didn't need us, and the censor waves began.

Now they've taken away dislike counts solely to appease companies buying ads on their platform.

I absolutely love how you are all for censorship of videos on YouTube, but you seem to abhor the thought of HN going away.

You are willing to silence people whom you disagree with, but heaven forbid they come for the platform you happen to use :)

[rosndo]

What you’re suggesting is not in line with current legislation, it’s just mere fantasy.

But if we lived in a world where your fantasy came true, how could any moderated discussion board exist?

> I absolutely love how you are all for censorship of videos on YouTube, but you seem to abhor the thought of HN going away.

These two are the same. HN wouldn’t exist without all the hours put into censorship by dang.

[sennight]

Current legislation is selectively enforced - pointing to a lack of enforcement only weakens your position. There are a lot of major distinguishing differences between HN and Youtube, but one of the most obvious is the way HN has a narrowly tailored scope - it is a platform for a very specific kind of content. You have the direct opposite (originally) for Youtube - unbound scope with narrowly defined no-go zone (illegal and copywrite protected material).

[rosndo]

This isn’t about selective enforcement, the current legislation simply does not work the way you would like it to work.

> You have the direct opposite (originally) for Youtube - unbound scope with narrowly defined no-go zone (illegal and copywrite protected material).

This isn’t true, youtube has a far bigger no-go zone than you suggest.