> Neither you nor the media are in position to disprove or prove anything.

Then what do people want? I'm not hearing simultaneous complaints that it is important for youtube to host these. "debates" so that the social media community can address wild claims and also that it is a worthless effort.

If random internet commenters can't make productive change in the crazy beliefs held by some people then great! I actually agree that is the most likely outcome. This means that nothing is lost if youtube says "we don't want to be the home to this debate".

You are free to disagree but for me a company like Youtube who has a quasi-monopolistic dominion on internet video (yes people say go to dailymotion etc, they are being disingenuous, for many reasons youtube is the only good option) is playing a dangerous game by selectively enforcing what content to host. If tomorrow they start removing BLM videos or even worst any video critical of Google I expect you wont just shrug your shoulders and say "Well, they can go and create their own video service, nothing is lost"

> If tomorrow they start removing BLM videos or even worst any video critical of Google I expect you wont just shrug your shoulders and say "Well, they can go and create their own video service, nothing is lost"

That's right. I do believe that booting white supremacist content off youtube is good and booting blm content off youtube is bad. The merits of the content are meaningfully different. If people want to argue the white supremacist content is merited, they can certainly try.

The game is already dangerous, even if youtube decides to host literally everything its users upload.