Hacker News Reader

>If you fully ramify your position, you're advocating that the government tell me that if I host videos, I can't prevent people from posting videos that I don't like. E.g., if I make a cat video hosting platform, and someone uploads a dog video, I can't stop them.

No, I'm not arguing that YouTube should be legally required to permit all legal content. I'm arguing that I ethically expect them to. Or, at least, expecting them to is a valid position.

View on HN

Is my no-dogs-allowed CatTube unethical, then?

Or do the ethics have to do with YouTube's utility like status?

I personally am happy that YouTube can and does censor/ban porn, obscene videos, and videos depicting humans dying.

You keep inferring that I think any particular subject should be permitted on YouTube, while I've deliberately avoided saying so. The only point I've made is that trotting out the old "private companies aren't the government and aren't required to uphold free speech" argument is silly because feeling an extralegal expectation of certain behaviors private companies should follow is entirely reasonable.

So you have an expectation that CatTube should host dog videos?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com