5 ms·

What kind of weird lawyerly nitpicking is this. YouTube does not want to be associated with an alleged rapist. Is that so hard to understand.

QuantumG 3y ago
[flagged]
- TheHappyOddish 3y ago
  ...which never worried them in the past, and they were happy to make money from.
  - QuantumG 3y ago
    Oh I see, you seem to think he hasn't had this treatment before. I guess you missed the dozen previous times he's complained about the system trying to silence him. It's totally on-brand for Brand.
marcell 3y ago
It’s not lawyerly nitpicking. The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. YouTube, in their statement, is pretending they have an objective standard that is fairly applied to everyone. In reality, there is no uniform standard. They ban people when business interests dictate it. So their policy reads as “we have an objective standard,” but reality is “we ban when we feel like it.” YouTube could fix this contradiction by changing their policy to something like “we will ban creators for any reason, at our discretion.”
- pixl97 3y ago
  >The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. ??? You are conflating all the different legal systems of the US. US criminal law is the one of beyond reasonable doubt. US civil law on the other hand is an entire other bag of worms and 'potential' contractual obligations. On top of that private property has a pretty massive leeway in reasons you can ban people from said properties. There is no contradiction here. "Fuck you, your tie sucks" is a completely valid reason to remove you from their private property. Said person being a dick to others is what is typically considered an exceptionally valid reason to remove them from the property. If we want to follow a broad social convention, then it is be nice to others, how about that for a start?
  - marcell 3y ago
    If the policy is “Fuck you, your tie sucks”, then that should be written into the policy. YouTube’s policy does not say “Fuck your, your tie sucks.” They say they remove people for harm to users. But there are many creators who harm users who are not being removed. So that is not the policy. They can easily fixing this by changing the policy to “fuck you, your tie sucks” or “we ban for any reason at our discretion.” Until they make that change, it’s perfectly fair to point out the contradiction.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nursie 3y ago
      > They can easily fixing this by changing the policy to ... “we ban for any reason at our discretion.” What makes you think that isn't already in their ToS?
      - pixl97 3y ago
        Pretty much a staple of US law is "We withhold the right to refuse service to anyone". There are only a few preconditions (civil rights for example) that are exceptions to this rule.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >then that should be written into the policy. Please feel free to take them to civil court and get the mto change it. Now, I'm not one for this entire "corporations are people too" thing we have going on in the US, but trying to call Google out for this in particular when the courts have sided with businesses freedom of association until it becomes a civil rights violation in the vast majority of cases. You can point out it as much as you like, but it's mostly a waste of your time until you start championing for 'consumer rights'.
      - edgineer 3y ago
        The only court that can coerce YouTube to change its policies is here... public opinion.
- deanCommie 3y ago
  > In reality, there is no uniform standard. > They ban people when business interests dictate it. That is the standard. They're a private company. They're offering free services to content creators to host their content. In exchange for an ad partnership and revenue. But YouTube/Google is the company, and for them this is a business. If they think hosting someone is bad for business they can stop hosting them. How is it everyone here is so pro-Liberty yet fails to understand that the Libertarian position is that YouTube and the people that run it are free to host or promote whatever content they want that makes them money (as long as it's not against the law), and they can choose to not. Brand is free to take his content somewhere else. He is not entitled to YouTube's hosting privileges, and they're not entitled to him hosting his content there.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > It’s not lawyerly nitpicking. The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. I think this is pretty much objectively false. Cops are constantly accused of uneven policing. Court routinely give lighter sentences for the same crime to different demographics. Sports are not ruled by the rulebook. Pretty much every business uses a super vague ToS that do not define concrete rules. Did you give your kids the Codes of Marcell that they have to abide by? With everything they have to abide by? Society runs off "at our discretion".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
royroyroys 3y ago
Are they not still associated with an alleged rapist by hosting and monetising his content, but not sharing the profits with the content creator? They should just give him notice to close his account if that is the case and close his account.
- EGreg 3y ago
  By demonetizing him, they’ve “done something” and if there is a further outcry they can take more drastic steps. It’s like the very first West Wing episode “a proportional response”. They just want to be seen as “doing something” and if they do it first they seem cooler than other platforms. Didnt deplatform him, just demonetized. They have done this to a lot of other non-mainstream political voices.
brokenmachine 3y ago
They don't want to be associated with him... but they do want to be associated with the ad revenue his content generates.
ChatGTP 3y ago
So now people are guilty before being tried in a court of law ? Sounds interesting…

QuantumG 3y ago

[flagged]

TheHappyOddish 3y ago
...which never worried them in the past, and they were happy to make money from.
- QuantumG 3y ago
  Oh I see, you seem to think he hasn't had this treatment before. I guess you missed the dozen previous times he's complained about the system trying to silence him. It's totally on-brand for Brand.

marcell 3y ago

It’s not lawyerly nitpicking. The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. YouTube, in their statement, is pretending they have an objective standard that is fairly applied to everyone. In reality, there is no uniform standard. They ban people when business interests dictate it. So their policy reads as “we have an objective standard,” but reality is “we ban when we feel like it.” YouTube could fix this contradiction by changing their policy to something like “we will ban creators for any reason, at our discretion.”

pixl97 3y ago
>The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. ??? You are conflating all the different legal systems of the US. US criminal law is the one of beyond reasonable doubt. US civil law on the other hand is an entire other bag of worms and 'potential' contractual obligations. On top of that private property has a pretty massive leeway in reasons you can ban people from said properties. There is no contradiction here. "Fuck you, your tie sucks" is a completely valid reason to remove you from their private property. Said person being a dick to others is what is typically considered an exceptionally valid reason to remove them from the property. If we want to follow a broad social convention, then it is be nice to others, how about that for a start?
- marcell 3y ago
  If the policy is “Fuck you, your tie sucks”, then that should be written into the policy. YouTube’s policy does not say “Fuck your, your tie sucks.” They say they remove people for harm to users. But there are many creators who harm users who are not being removed. So that is not the policy. They can easily fixing this by changing the policy to “fuck you, your tie sucks” or “we ban for any reason at our discretion.” Until they make that change, it’s perfectly fair to point out the contradiction.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nursie 3y ago
    > They can easily fixing this by changing the policy to ... “we ban for any reason at our discretion.” What makes you think that isn't already in their ToS?
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Pretty much a staple of US law is "We withhold the right to refuse service to anyone". There are only a few preconditions (civil rights for example) that are exceptions to this rule.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >then that should be written into the policy. Please feel free to take them to civil court and get the mto change it. Now, I'm not one for this entire "corporations are people too" thing we have going on in the US, but trying to call Google out for this in particular when the courts have sided with businesses freedom of association until it becomes a civil rights violation in the vast majority of cases. You can point out it as much as you like, but it's mostly a waste of your time until you start championing for 'consumer rights'.
    - edgineer 3y ago
      The only court that can coerce YouTube to change its policies is here... public opinion.
deanCommie 3y ago
> In reality, there is no uniform standard. > They ban people when business interests dictate it. That is the standard. They're a private company. They're offering free services to content creators to host their content. In exchange for an ad partnership and revenue. But YouTube/Google is the company, and for them this is a business. If they think hosting someone is bad for business they can stop hosting them. How is it everyone here is so pro-Liberty yet fails to understand that the Libertarian position is that YouTube and the people that run it are free to host or promote whatever content they want that makes them money (as long as it's not against the law), and they can choose to not. Brand is free to take his content somewhere else. He is not entitled to YouTube's hosting privileges, and they're not entitled to him hosting his content there.
lesuorac 3y ago
> It’s not lawyerly nitpicking. The US has a tradition in rule of law, and it’s a social convention that applies broadly. I think this is pretty much objectively false. Cops are constantly accused of uneven policing. Court routinely give lighter sentences for the same crime to different demographics. Sports are not ruled by the rulebook. Pretty much every business uses a super vague ToS that do not define concrete rules. Did you give your kids the Codes of Marcell that they have to abide by? With everything they have to abide by? Society runs off "at our discretion".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

royroyroys 3y ago

Are they not still associated with an alleged rapist by hosting and monetising his content, but not sharing the profits with the content creator? They should just give him notice to close his account if that is the case and close his account.

EGreg 3y ago
By demonetizing him, they’ve “done something” and if there is a further outcry they can take more drastic steps. It’s like the very first West Wing episode “a proportional response”. They just want to be seen as “doing something” and if they do it first they seem cooler than other platforms. Didnt deplatform him, just demonetized. They have done this to a lot of other non-mainstream political voices.

brokenmachine 3y ago

They don't want to be associated with him... but they do want to be associated with the ad revenue his content generates.

ChatGTP 3y ago

So now people are guilty before being tried in a court of law ? Sounds interesting…