Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> the private platform argument

No part of what you said is an argument.

Do private platforms have unlimited latitude? If not, what are the underlying philosophies underlying current limitations, and can those be seen to imply that other limitations should be made? Should private platforms have unlimited latitude?

Those are discussions that could be had. "Private things are allowed to do whatever they want" is not only a thought-terminating cliché that avoids all ethical or tactical judgement, but a simple falsehood.



> Do private platforms have unlimited latitude?

Who is arguing that? No need to create a straw-man argument.

> "Private things are allowed to do whatever they want"

Who are you quoting here?

So YouTube (owned by Google) doesn't reserve the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service?

I already said the offended users can appeal, didn't I? I'm just saying that not only this can happen to anyone, but YouTube (Google Inc.) will not change and we'll see more of this regardless if it is automated or not.


I'm not saying that you're arguing anything.

> Who are you quoting here?

Nobody. But if the fact that Google reserves the right to ban people for reasons described in its ToS is an argument for something, I'd like to know what else it could be an argument for. Who cares what Google reserves?

edit: I'm being sloppy. "Google reserved the right to delete for this reason," and "private things that reserve rights get them", and "Google is private" equals "Google gains this right." This would be an argument you could make. However, you haven't made this argument.

Are you making an argument about choosing youtube? I might be mistaking a pragmatic observation for a political/legal discussion.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: