News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by Turing_Machine on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @11:21PM (#16761517)
> I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm asking where you draw the line.

Well, one starting point would be looking at past examples of antitrust action. The AT&T and Standard Oil cases might be instructive.

> What part of the first amendment guarantees me YouTube has to host and monetize my videos?

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the First Amendment. I think they should either be declared a common carrier (and thus required to serve all without discrimination) or (conversely) they should have their DMCA safe harbor privileges revoked.

Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by colechristensen on Thursday April 05, 2018 @03:49PM (#16768295)
>required to serve all without discrimination

"discrimination" legally is about protected classes, and like I said expressed opinions aren't protected classes.

Do you take 'required to serve all' as services without moderation? I don't really want to be surrounded by opinion anarchy.