1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 7/31/26 at 5:23 pm to Dawgsontop34
quote:
Didn’t you just say they should be sued into oblivion?
I did. Both things can be true.
In a just world they would be sued into oblivion for collusion, anti-trust issues, breach of contract, anything and everything people could sue them for.
Unfortunately we don't live in a just world.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 5:28 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Bunk Moreland
Fence sitters suck.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 5:44 pm to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
Sure but then they should lose protections if they're actively curating content.
Are they a special trust? If not, they should not have any special protections. I'm not aware of any that YouTube would have.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 6:10 pm to theballguy
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act shields online intermediaries from civil liability for user-generated content. Under this law, platforms, websites, and internet service providers are not legally treated as the "publisher or speaker" of third-party content.
If youtube is policing what political opinions are and arent allowed on their site, then youtube.com is an editorialized website and shouldnt receive any section 230 protections.
If youtube is policing what political opinions are and arent allowed on their site, then youtube.com is an editorialized website and shouldnt receive any section 230 protections.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 6:14 pm to BoarEd
I care what YouTube did six years ago, and I think it’s important.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 6:20 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
What protections do they have?
They are classified as a "platform," but if they keep editing they can slip into the realm of "publisher" which can have different liabilities.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 6:26 pm to Stat M Repairman
quote:
“Our democracy” is their preferred nomenclature.
Anyone to the right of Stalin, Mao or Chavez are not welcomed in "their democrazy"
This post was edited on 7/31/26 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 7/31/26 at 7:12 pm to BoarEd
WTF……..doctors were against the jab
The doctor that invented the MNRA jab was against the jab and almost died from the jab….
The doctor that invented the MNRA jab was against the jab and almost died from the jab….
Posted on 7/31/26 at 8:01 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Indefatigable
Oh, you're still alive? Damn.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 8:14 pm to BoarEd
Exactly what would be the cause of action? And what would be the measure of damages?
Posted on 7/31/26 at 8:36 pm to VOR
See my last post just above yours.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 8:45 pm to BuckeyeGoon
Then, tbh, I don't know anything about it.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 9:06 pm to BoarEd
In no way am I saying that they should be dismantled. But theres no doubt that YouTube is a monopoly. There’s just nothing else like them. That’s even comparable in that sector.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 10:54 pm to BoarEd
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:16 pm to Kjnstkmn
Rumble has been pushed by some influencers on the right. It’s never gonna reach YouTube levels, unless something unforeseen happens.
Heck, many of those same influencers post their videos and/or live streams to both.
Heck, many of those same influencers post their videos and/or live streams to both.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:17 pm to maizegoblue
And shawdowbans might be the worst than actually getting a ban or timeout.
A lot of the time the creators and subscribers don’t even realize it’s going on.
I hate when I’m trying to find an old video that was posted years ago, it was easy to find at the time. Then they make it damn near impossible to find.
This doesn’t just apply to politics. It can also apply to sports, sports commentary where someone goes nuts, a clip from a tv show or movie, stupid fail videos, etc. pick your poison.
A lot of the time the creators and subscribers don’t even realize it’s going on.
I hate when I’m trying to find an old video that was posted years ago, it was easy to find at the time. Then they make it damn near impossible to find.
This doesn’t just apply to politics. It can also apply to sports, sports commentary where someone goes nuts, a clip from a tv show or movie, stupid fail videos, etc. pick your poison.
This post was edited on 7/31/26 at 11:22 pm
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:35 pm to BuckeyeGoon
quote:Thank you. I knew there was an actual legal aspect to it.
Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act shields online intermediaries from civil liability for user-generated content. Under this law, platforms, websites, and internet service providers are not legally treated as the "publisher or speaker" of third-party content.
If youtube is policing what political opinions are and arent allowed on their site, then youtube.com is an editorialized website and shouldnt receive any section 230 protections.
Posted on 7/31/26 at 11:50 pm to BoarEd
Wrong-think during covid and you were got after.
Posted on 8/1/26 at 2:43 am to Jack Daniel
quote:
Would blame the weaponized govt. that was bullying them to doing it.
Agreed!!!! Wait…
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News