section 230 — the sinister plan

As I am sure most of you have heard, over the past 6 months or so, YouTube has been purging content and the creators themselves who voice conservative opinions in their videos or who speak about crypt0 currencies.

Just recently, they posted an entry in their blog titled “Supporting the 2020 U.S. election” in which they state they will be censoring content that calls into question the accuracy or legitimacy of the outcome of the 2020 election as stated by the mainstream media (“MSM”).

I wonder if they realize that about half of all people in the United States strongly believe the election result as it stands today to be fraudulent? I wonder if YouTube has any sense of just how popular crypt0 currencies are becoming, especially with younger generations that typically dictate which social media platforms prosper and which go away. Does it seem to you that these are the actions of a platform that wants to remain the dominant social media video platform in the U.S.? What could be going on?

One option put forth by some circles is that the top brass at Google and YouTube have a political bias, which is leaking through to a platform that would be non-partisan in a perfect world. While this may not be completely unfounded, let’s set this notion aside for now and visit a different theory.

Bear with me here — I’m going to take some leaps and highlight an alternative motivation that may be at play. Section 230 is a segment of a larger act passed by congress that provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content. Currently YouTube is protected from litigation by this section of law, as are all other social media platforms.

I ask again, are these recent actions by YouTube in line with a platform that wants to remain the top dog? Enter the sinister plan. I propose that this egregious level of censorship is potentially being done on purpose to force congress’ hand in repealing Section 230, thereby eliminating the liability protection that all platforms currently enjoy.

Why would they do this? Think about it — immediately all smaller platforms would lose this protection and just one lawsuit or one large settlement could put them out of business, leaving only the largest among them (YouTube) that have deep enough pockets to defend themselves from lawsuits.

Whether or not my speculation that this is indeed part of their plan to remove competition from smaller players, on many occasions lately there have been calls by high-level politicians to repeal Section 230. So regardless of YouTube’s motives, it could still happen.

Let’s tie this back to the Theta Network. Let’s say Section 230 gets repealed and many smaller players close up shop. Let’s also say that Theta Labs has continued their break-neck pace of development on this completely decentralized video ecosystem. Who would there be to sue? If there is no central party in the middle, there would be nobody to name in court as a defendant. This concept is akin to trying to shut down Bitcoin. Who would the powers that be go after first?

This could bring a flood of people to the Theta Network whom are fleeing YouTube censorship and smaller platforms that failed. This would be in addition to all of the organic growth the Theta Network would have seen anyway given they are easily the most innovative project out there.

In short, nothing can stop what is coming. Nothing. Theta is going to eat YouTube’s lunch enough months in a row until they fold and implement the Theta Network on their platform. Despite eventually caving in, self-inflicted irreparable damage will have been done to the once great YouTube. Either that or YouTube already knows they are going to implement the Theta Network…

Thank you for humoring me.