Once again, a candidate not being able to post to Youtube is not a threat to democracy. Nothing is stopping this candidate from posting this on their campaign site, or an RNC affiliated site or even Facebook where most of their supporters are likely to be.
> Once again, a candidate not being able to post to Youtube is not a threat to democracy.
Yes it is. Youtube is a huge conduit for communication.
Imagine if ABC banned a candidate. The argument that there’s still CBS and NBC are available is not relevant as a major media outlet is favoring a candidate by blocking their opponents.
For small outlets it’s not an issue. But YouTube is the biggest video provider on the planet, not allowing a political candidate would be detrimental to democracy.
Even if that candidate said stupid stuff like “world is flat.” People have to make their decision and as long as we’re a democracy, that choice should be individual.
If you don't have a big enough chance at winning, you don't go to debates
Mind you, news networks recently had a very strong preference towards the incumbent president, aligning their news to match the president's talking points, and having nightly calls to align their messages
YouTube would be literally interfering with a democratic election. If threat is too strong a word, fine. But you can't deny that they are actively participating in public elections. We want that? We want to privatize democracy? I don't.
