Where in my comment did I say that YouTube doesn't have the right to ban content?
Nowhere. It always puzzles me why this response always crops up, even when I never even remotely try to claim that platforms have any legal obligation to host content.
I did claim that making their site have a partisan recommendation algorithm is not a good idea and may be bad for society. I have zero doubt that this is their right, but people and companies have the right to do plenty of things that aren't good for society. Saying that it's bad for society to implement a partisan recommendation algorithm is not at all the same thing as saying it is or should be illegal.
My theory of HN comments: People prefer to respond to familar arguments, rather than the arguments you make in your comments. People prefer to discuss topics that they are familiar or passionate about, rather than the specific topics addressed in the articles or parent comments.
I do because I'm stating my own personal views. You do as well, when you are stating your own views. Why do people keep trying to depict people stating their opinions as advocating some sort of government sponsored program forcing their opinions on others? Has discourse really gotten to the point where we just assume that when people state their views they are always implying that they want these views enforced on others?
It's entirely valid to say that tech companies' censorship or forms of manipulating views is bad while acknowledging that this is their legal right. This comment applies just as much to you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19525998
