On: YouTube Is Removing Some Nootropics Channels

[avereveard]

sure, feel free to use any of these alternative services that offer a large potential reach and allow easy monetization of user content:

[s73v3r_ → avereveard]

None of the alternative services will get there if no one is willing to use them.

There is always the old fashioned way of getting sponsors yourself and hosting the video on your site.

[akvadrako → s73v3r_]

and it's not like youtube pays out very well - it's 90% towards google at the minimum.

[kirykl → avereveard]

in the US you have a right to free speech, not mass reach

[girvo → kirykl]

Then that definition of free speech ignores the changes in culture and communication, no? (I’m not even disagreeing with you, I’m more curious here. This article and discussion has brought up interesting points I think)

[avereveard → girvo]

He’s right about free speech. Even in countries where free speech is a right, it is strictly defined as government can’t punish you for your opinion. Private companies can show users the door at any time.

What I fail to see is what has his retort about free speech anything to do with my comment on the youtube monopolistic position.