Absolutely. The difference is simple, too: it's marketing if you "love" something that cannot love you back.

You could not have more thoroughly failed to understand what I said. If it were spoken verbally I could understand that, but it is text. You can re-read it as many times as it takes to comprehend it. Perhaps you would like to take a few deep, relaxing breaths and become nice and calm, maybe think of your own personal happy place? That way you can shut down your emotions and activate your logic and reason to let those do the thinking? Section by section, then:

If Youtube wants to say "we will selectively censor what we dislike depending on our mood at that moment on that day, and not according to a policy that is applied equally to everyone", that would be different. Youtube has made no such claim. What they have claimed is that they will not tolerate hate speech.

They were given multiple examples of hate speech. They censored the one that wasn't even intended to be hateful while allowing replies that were specifically designed to make that child feel bad. If they wish to rewrite their policy so that it reads "no hate speech allowed ... except the hate speech we decide to accept" that would be different. That would be fucked up, but at least it would not be hypocritical.

There are only two logically consistent, non-hypocritical way to handle things: either censor both the girl AND her hateful responders, or censor none of them. I don't care what emotions your endocrine system is making you to feel at this moment. I also don't care if you personally favor one kind of hate speech over another kind. That's the simple truth.

I do not believe this sixteen-year-old girl is a legislator. Neither is she in an executive position where she can veto a bill or sign that bill into law. She is not trying to pass any law. She is merely trying to express an opinion. Do you see how simple that is, and how ridiculous you are for suggesting otherwise?

This is why you cannot separate your emotion from reason here. You have this desperate need to make the girl into a figurehead representing some radical Christians who really do try to pass oppressive laws. Naturally you then hate this creation you have made. That is why you want her to suffer. That is why you like one kind of hate speech, namely that which makes her suffer, while disliking another. You feel so justified applying your double standard because you really don't like her. It's still a double standard.

You are just as much of a hypocrite as Google. Don't play this game with me. I see things quite clearly and am not someone you can blind with emotion.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

At some point the copyright cartels need to learn to be satisifed with the billions they are already making. Why, if they quit spending so many tens of millions to run anti-piracy campaigns, filtering, lawsuits against grandmas and children, and to purchase new draconian laws, they'd have even more cash in their pockets!

And who says old people have left the workforce?

Amen. If Youtube is "infringing copyright" then so is every ISP, hard drive manufacturer, monitor maker, and speaker manufacturer.

"Who cares about costs," some say? Obviously hard drive manufacturers should include hardware-based filtering software to make sure nothing copyright is stored on the drives without prior authorization from the media cartels. Yes this would drive up the costs of hard drives, but ... but ... externalities!

Yeah. I'd rather every copyright be invalidated than live in that world. Far as I am concerned, the copyright cartels already receive enough special treatment. While it's low-brow of me, and I admit that freely, I derive a certain enjoyment from watching how much they scream and cry when they don't get their way. They're really not used to that.

And you should have that right even though this is reprehensible.

The rest of us are also free to decide not to associate with you. That's how it should be handled. I do not want some authority punishing you for it. You simply won't have too many friends and lots of people may decide not to do business with you and that's enough.

What kind of mental gymnastics must one perform to excuse this kind of blatant hypocrisy?

If curtailing "hate speech" is your goal then you don't care what kind of hatred it is. Certainly if your respect for others' creeds and religions is so low that you will brand them "hate speakers" merely for quoting a religion's holy book, that may not have been read with an emotion of hatred ... how do you then allow emotionally charged insults and death threats without recognizing that these contain hatred? Do you believe death threats are an act of love?

Personally I believe in free speech. That goes also for speech I think is reprehensible. Disallowing threats and slander/libel is a good balance. Everything else should be fine. This girl should be allowed to read from her Bible. The other users should also be allowed to insult her, provided they don't threaten her. Do you see how I am not taking sides here, how I am not being a hypocritical bastard about this? Unlike Google?

Yes, indeed. Wherever you find blatant and obvious hypocrisy, you find a selfish motive behind it. In this case, the selfish motive is user retention. You can understand why this is not founded in principle, right? You can see how this is not rooted in equanimity, correct?

So what's your selfish motive for defending obvious hypocrisy? I see no financial tie, so you must have a personal reason. Perhaps you really dislike religious people and are glad to see one suffer, even if you must compromise principles like free speech? Maybe you have bought into this childish hyper-emotional brand of Leftism where the fact that you "offended" me gives me the "right" to harass you? Especially if you are a Christian or a white male, since mindless group identity is everything to these anti-individuals?

Whatever happened to real men who had balls and brains, like Voltaire, who said "I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?" How about the American Founders, who knew damned well that people would use the First Amendment to say lots of things they may not personally like? All I see is a bunch of overgrown children who will use any excuse to make people behave the way they personally think they should.

This is one of the best posts I've read in a while.

When Python said it, it was not a repetitive meme.

Next objection!

I suppose that depends on who's looking.

To me, not letting this go makes them look bad in the strongest possible terms. There are few things I respect more than the ability to humble yourself and admit when you made a mistake, when you took something too far, when it's time to reverse course. That's because I've made mistakes in life and I know it takes courage to do this.

But then, I have principles. I have reason. You could say I have a soul. These people clearly don't.