Using government guidelines to police content: state censorship?

Re:Using government guidelines to police content: state cens... by ww2buff on Saturday July 03, 2021 @04:36PM (#27724695)

A corporation deciding not to run ads on videos of a crank promoting snake oil is not a First Amendment issue. It is barely even a censorship issue in the broadest sense of the term. Very sad to see Taibbi reduced to this kind of totally empty hysteria.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using government guidelines to police content: state cens... by GekkePrutser on Saturday July 03, 2021 @08:47PM (#27726388)

Yeah I was a bit surprised when I read the article and what they're complaining about is being demonetised. Not blocked.

I don't think this constitutes censorship. They can still publish what they want. They just don't get paid for it this way. If what they have to say it's that important, does it really matter? If they're indeed scientists, don't they have a day job doing science?

I'm all for free speech but getting paid for it is another issue altogether IMO. Still an ethical topic worth debating, but not a free speech issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using government guidelines to police content: state cens... by mnouquet on Saturday July 03, 2021 @05:04PM (#27724908)

If promoting a certain snake oil because you'll receive government favours, then it IS censorship, cf. all the Title IX unconstitutional enforcement following threats of pulling federal fundings.

In this case, GAFAMs are scared as can be from being "regulated".

[ Parent | on HN ]