Subj : Re: YouTube pays Trump
To : IB Joe
From : Ron L.
Date : Tue Oct 07 2025 07:29 am
-=> IB Joe wrote to Dr. What <=-
IJ> I hear you... BUT... to my understanding of Section 230 is that you
IJ> can't sue these companies over the content because they don' moderate
IJ> the content... Per Se.
That's the other side.
YouTube has declared themselves to be a "platform". So, like the phone
company, does not monitor content and can't be held responsible for objective
content. Note that this is pre-emptive monitoring. If someone REPORTS
objectionable content, YouTube can take action and still be a "poatform".
But as soon as they started monitoring content and pre-emptively blocking
content, they switched to the other side and became a "publisher", who IS
responsible for their content.
This is our frustration: YouTube wants to be a publisher, but doesn't want to
be held accountable for content. The law says that they need to stay on one
side or the other.
IJ> Like you can't sue the ink and paper companies for content in the NY
IJ> Times.
Correct. But you can sue the NY Times for libel.
In the case of YouTube, they want to only allow "good" people to have ink and
paper. But want to say "we only sell ink and paper".
IJ> What we do know now is that Joe Biden told the companies to sensor
IJ> people, they did, and as a result should not be protected by Section
IJ> 230.
Which is what most people are saying.
The Biden Regime should be in prison for violating the Constitution.
YouTube should be severaly punished for listening to them.
... My other computer is a Tandy 1100FD.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)
