Are you trying to make the point that YouTube is a special interest site and not a platform? Or are you trying to make the point that YouTube should have its cake and eat it too by being protected as a platform, and at the same time play the role of a curator and publisher?
>are you trying to make the point that YouTube should have its cake and eat it too by being protected as a platform, and at the same time play the role of a curator and publisher?
I could waste everyone's time and explain why that's flat wrong. Instead, I'll refer you here[0] which will explain, in detail, why you're wrong about Section 230.
I'm likely banned from HN now from all the downvotes I received for the perfectly legit response, yet some people appear to not like facts so much that they just downvote to censor (which HN does).
