The rationale does apply to everyone: "if you're a big enough content hoster that we've heard of you before, we'll reach out to you rather than blocking your domain immediately". Google doesn't just make an exception for themselves, it also makes an exception for Microsoft, Dropbox, Box, Facebook, and probably hundreds of others that are too small for me to know about.
We can argue about whether this is fair to small players, but it's hardly self-dealing for Google to include themselves in their list of high-profile content hosters, and there are very rational reasons for maintaining such a list.
My point is not whether the rationale is valid or invalid: the point is, they're not going to do it. Is that wrong, in the ethical sense? Quite possibly. Do they care? No.
Try googling the "Golden Rule" and you'll find a version that says "they who have the gold make the rules".
Brian_K_White|2 years ago
If that rationale were valid, it would apply to everyone, including google.
If the rationale does not apply to google, then it does not apply to anyone else.
Please gooogle (if they let you) the concept "double standard".
lolinder|2 years ago
We can argue about whether this is fair to small players, but it's hardly self-dealing for Google to include themselves in their list of high-profile content hosters, and there are very rational reasons for maintaining such a list.
FFP999|2 years ago
Try googling the "Golden Rule" and you'll find a version that says "they who have the gold make the rules".