YouTube to pay Trump $22M following January 6 Capitol riots ban | Hacker News Reader

YouTube to pay Trump $22M following January 6 Capitol riots ban

abc.net.au

29 pointsDavidPiper16 comments

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)

[flagged]

I was at the time. That was not a lie.

Huh the pandemic must have really radicalised you then I assume, like so many other Americans.

Can you also justify that attribution of "insane" in rational terms? Or do you just mean "reality surpasses fiction in the chain of preposterousness"?

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?

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.

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.

But questions will be raised now, and they will be raised again later, since the absurdity of the sentencing will resound in jurisprudence for years to come.

This will probably and hopefully not be forgotten: the question will remain for later.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com