<story><title>YouTube suspends Donald Trump&apos;s channel</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55643774</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jasonlfunk</author><text>Are we really okay with the big tech companies having this much power? We just saw Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon collective destroy a competitor and censor a sitting President.  Perhaps in these specific cases, they are justified. But these are actions that ought to be taken by governments, not businesses.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rzz3</author><text>As someone who works in “big tech”, I don’t think we should have this power, especially when so selectively and reactively applied. We’ve all already heard all of the debates and I don’t wish to rehash it all. I’ve heard a lot of great arguments on all sides of the issue (and there are more than two), but the purpose of my comment is just to say that opinions within our community are not uniform. Not many of us speak our minds about it, unless we agree with the mainstream perspective of “this is fine ”.&lt;p&gt;I’d like to see more of a constitutional framework establishing some type of due process and equal access, personally.&lt;p&gt;We’re currently the sole arbitrators of who is allowed to speak to the world and who is not. And for all those who say “they’re welcome to go use a different platform”, well they did, and look what happens. Apple, Google, and Amazon can simply destroy a community within minutes, and we all applaud because we detest this particular community.</text></comment>
<story><title>YouTube suspends Donald Trump&apos;s channel</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55643774</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jasonlfunk</author><text>Are we really okay with the big tech companies having this much power? We just saw Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon collective destroy a competitor and censor a sitting President.  Perhaps in these specific cases, they are justified. But these are actions that ought to be taken by governments, not businesses.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rzwitserloot</author><text>&amp;gt; We just saw Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon collective destroy a competitor&lt;p&gt;Highly problematic.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; We just saw Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon  censor a sitting President&lt;p&gt;What are you talking about? He&amp;#x27;s the president. If he has something to say, there are a million ways for him to get the message out.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; But these are actions that ought to be taken by governments&lt;p&gt;A government compelling a person (or a private company) to publish something is in violation of the law in many countries, often a constitutional law (Example: That violates the first amendment quite clearly, in the USA). I also think most folks would find that highly suspect.&lt;p&gt;Bigger companies shutting out smaller ones is highly problematic, but then laws do exist to stop this (anti-trust laws). These probably need an update. Whatever update they get, if they prevent Parler&amp;#x27;s shutdown they went too far. I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure that shutdown wasn&amp;#x27;t about &amp;#x27;eliminating&amp;#x27; a competitor at all.</text></comment>