Under what law are either of those “grounds for being broken up”? Under US antitrust law, they have to use their monopolistic position to engage in anticompetitive practices. How is what they’re doing here anticompetitive? That’s the legal argument you have to win to get the company broken up.

I’m quite familiar with the Act, which does not invest the executive with absolute power. From your own source:

“Yes, the house can block things, but only up to a point, But when he keeps claiming “National Security”, it bypasses congressional approval and only needs the executive branch to enact it.”

Who ever said “it couldn’t happen here”? Certainly not me. But we’re not even close to “it” happening. If you want to use Nazi Germany as your example, we’re going to have to be in DEEP economic trouble to hand over that much power to Trump.

Luckily, the Senate is not the entire legislative branch. The House won’t let it by, and neither will the federal courts.

It doesn’t matter if he knows it or not - any law he wants passed has to go through the House, and you better believe Nancy ain’t having none of that bullshit. And any policy created via executive order is likewise constrained by the Constitution and thus the federal judiciary, which has had no problem standing up to…

Uh... apparently YOU haven’t been watching the news, because the Dems control the House. He can dictate whatever law he wants - it still has to pass the House, which it won’t. Let’s all live in reality, okay?

Luckily, the President doesn’t write laws - he’s the head of the executive branch, not the legislature.

My brain’s been slowly melting inside my skull, actually. But I do appreciate someone else noticing it.

I would LOVE to drive conspiracy theorists back into the shadows. As it is, they have free reign, and their disease is spreading further and further into society. Your assertion that letting them post with impunity will reduce their exposure and followers has not been borne out by the evidence in the slightest. The…

If only he gave his life so you could learn to spell, argue logically, or not be a douchebag. All well - sorry, Grandpa’s ghost! I’m sure you did your best.

No, nothing squelches a conspiracy theorist’s suspicions. Period. All you can do is stop the disease from spreading. They’re too far gone to change their minds, as is well-documented in psychological studies on conspiratorial thinking.

That’s NOT how you win an argument. You clearly have zero understanding of the well-documented psychological factors at play here - do a little research before making demonstrably false blanket statements like “The best way to defeat an argument is to challenge it with evidence.” You’re falsely assuming your audience…

Censoring them doesn’t have the effect you postulate because no one knows what content was censored except for the uploader.

What an idiotic take. As if evidence has any effect on the thinking of conspiracy morons.

So you are 100% in favor of YouTube allowing child pornography on their platform? That’s pretty fucking sick.

“Youtube proclaims themselves to be a platform, therefore they don’t have the right to censor someone’s free speech unless it’s breaking the law.”

Literally nothing in this post had anything to do with legality. The question is “why doesn’t YouTube enforce THEIR OWN policies.” You haven’t addressed that in any way, so you’ve missed the entire point of the discussion.

Wow. You’re delusional.

Uh... nope.