If I am reading your comments correctly, it seems that you would have no issue with being silenced by an authority, regardless of the justification used or its validity, per se. I don’t think this is an intellectually honest position to hold.
For all you know it could be C&D letters, not all the vids have been stricken.
You've an obvious axe to grind, which is fine, but does not give you the right to dictate what is and is not misinformation, nor harmful.
I'm a different person. I don't have an axe to grind. I'm not dictating anything misinformation or not. Neither was the other person.
> For all you know it could be C&D letters, not all the vids have been stricken
Then why would we be talking about videos YouTube removed for being misinformation?
> You don't run youtube either, so why is what you think relevant?
I believe the statement made was "YouTube has the right to choose what they distribute". You also have that right. So do I. I don't need to run YouTube (or HN) to believe they have those rights. You or I can deem whatever we wish, and you'd be correct: it isn't relevant.
We are discussing a video being removed, the other poster was the one acreaming about it being misinformative. They have no idea why or even what videos were stricken, they were simply gloating.
This is beyond a platform having the right or not, they can indeed choose what to host. Byt once you start labeling videos as misinformation or censoring and removing them, you male yourself the arbiter of truth.
I personally do not want an ad company deciding anything for me, not ever.
A label would be one thing, but removing videos on a whim (which happens every single day- reasons are almost never given, and the rules arw arbitrary).
Also, comparing a person to a huge public square (youtube is very much an online public square) is very disingenuous. If I choose not to believe something (my version of 'allowing something on my platform or not), it wouldn't effectively silence that person, as it does when videos and channels are nixed.
