Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove
View Post
1. The bakery was (as Talent pointed out) the subject of government-sponsored legal jeopardy. This was a test case to see if the government could force persons to say what the government wanted them to say. The "gay couple" involved had no actual damages. The bakery had massive damages, and continues to suffer damages as the government targets them.
2. The government heavily subsidizes YouTube and other "platforms" by protecting them from civil litigation (Section 230). In a relevant sense, YouTube is a common carrier akin to an electric company or to the Ambassador Bridge company. Imagine if you couldn't cross the bridge if you had a Trump sticker on your car. That is what is actually going on. This "principled stand" is not about anything related to capitalism. YouTube has made the determination that censoring conservative content to support Democrat candidates is simply more profitable long-term than risking a DOJ-led breakup due the clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Government subsidy is why Parlor cannot sue YouTube or Apple for taking away their platform.
Comment