| ▲ | epolanski 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> That's just not true. Prove me the contrary: find me a single law that forces any business to have business with any other, regardless of them wanting to or not. I'm 100% sure nobody can force me to do business with people I don't want and if you're a professional I can't force you either to do business with me. Why would you think this would be a good law to have? Only discrimination would be a valid reason. If Google (business) doesn't want to platform a creator (another business), that's their right. Of course we can question the morale or ethics, but that's about it. > If Congress made a law tomorrow (laughable in the current environment, I know) that said that any public video platform provider with over X users couldn't ban anyone except for specific reasons, then YouTube would, indeed, have to keep such people on their platform. But such laws do not exist in pretty much any part of the world: you can't force a business (Youtube) to do business with another one (a creator). The reason why this is obviously different is because Youtube is a de facto monopoly on large parts of internet content. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | danaris 3 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Prove me the contrary: find me a single law that forces any business to have business with any other, regardless of them wanting to or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_la... Sorry, but either you've phrased yourself poorly for what you actually want to say, or you're genuinely unaware of the many anti-discrimination laws in the US, a substantial number of which explicitly prohibit businesses from refusing service to people in protected categories. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||