> The day this happened many, even on the left (including me at the time) noted how insane it was that they cancelled the sitting president.
Well, when does the equation change? Or are third parties obligated to function as the radio/TV stations that African rebels co-opt in the first moments of a coup?
I remember being more astonished that it took so long for it to finally happen. If he hadn't been the president, he would have been banned ages earlier. Same exact thing with this settlement - if he wasn't the president it wouldn't be happening. Based on merit alone, he'd stay banned for life.
I see where you are coming from, but I completely disagree - his content is mild, he's just being banned because he's in the enemy's party, among the people running the platforms.
(politically I dislike both right wing authoritarianism and left wing authoritarianism - and I live in EU)
You're obviously not left wing when you're elsewhere claiming Jan 6th insurrection was an FBI inside job and unironically citing Tim Pool as evidence. Why lie? What is the need to perform rather than be sincere and open?
Alternatively, a settlement to end litigation is a great way to cleanly, openly, and almost unassailably transfer money to someone you might not otherwise be able to pay. And who's to question the propriety of the amount?
Well they've shown that they're willing to abuse every arm of the government to punish dissent. $22 million is cheap if it avoids extralegal retaliation by the US government.
This was first reported by WSJ - we should use a primary source when it's so readily available:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/youtube-to-pay-24-5-million-...
The day this happened many, even on the left (including me at the time) noted how insane it was that they cancelled the sitting president.
> The day this happened many, even on the left (including me at the time) noted how insane it was that they cancelled the sitting president.
Well, when does the equation change? Or are third parties obligated to function as the radio/TV stations that African rebels co-opt in the first moments of a coup?
I remember being more astonished that it took so long for it to finally happen. If he hadn't been the president, he would have been banned ages earlier. Same exact thing with this settlement - if he wasn't the president it wouldn't be happening. Based on merit alone, he'd stay banned for life.
I see where you are coming from, but I completely disagree - his content is mild, he's just being banned because he's in the enemy's party, among the people running the platforms.
(politically I dislike both right wing authoritarianism and left wing authoritarianism - and I live in EU)
Seeing as how your account was created in 2024...
Life is only in hacker news right
If you considered that insane you werent on the left, you were an embarrassed bootlicker.
You're obviously not left wing when you're elsewhere claiming Jan 6th insurrection was an FBI inside job and unironically citing Tim Pool as evidence. Why lie? What is the need to perform rather than be sincere and open?
Common Trump tactic is to use lawyers to bully organizations then have them settle out of court. I wish someone would stand up to this bully!
YouTube felt it could lose more than $22 million if it fought the lawsuit, which is interesting.
Alternatively, a settlement to end litigation is a great way to cleanly, openly, and almost unassailably transfer money to someone you might not otherwise be able to pay. And who's to question the propriety of the amount?
Or, alternatively, it is a means to pay a bribe which will be difficult to prove later if and when the US returns to the rule of law.
Well they've shown that they're willing to abuse every arm of the government to punish dissent. $22 million is cheap if it avoids extralegal retaliation by the US government.