3 ms·
From what I can gather, the White House didn't explicitly ask for the clip to be removed. Rather, they suggested the clip might violate YouTube's own terms of s
by tomstokes 14y ago
From what I can gather, the White House didn't explicitly ask for the clip to be removed. Rather, they suggested the clip might violate YouTube's own terms of service.
From the article:
> White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube's terms of service
Still, the net effect is the same. The gesture was made with the goal of having the video removed from YouTube. It's unfortunate that our administration went down this path at all.
- cheald 14y agoWe have to ask why on earth the White House should even care if the video violates Google's TOS. This was as close as they could get to a takedown request without violating the Constitution. Really disgraceful, IMO.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- cheald 14y agoI haven't missed the news. I'm well aware of the video and what it's been used as an excuse to do. I'm also aware that this request is effectively the White House requesting that content be repressed on political grounds, which is wholly antithetical to one of the core principles by which our government is run. It's trivial, by watching the video and by reading Google's TOS to say "oh, that's clearly not a violation". What the White House did is say "We want you to take that video down, and here's an excuse you can use to do it", which is Not Okay.
- tzs 14y agoSo people aren't confused as to what you are responding to, it was a comment of mine. A lot of people apparently completely misunderstood the point, so I deleted it. Sorry for orphaning your response.
- Karunamon 14y agoTapping someone on the shoulder and saying "Hey, could you take that down" is disgraceful? This was handled completely honorably and amicably as I can see. WH made a request, Google declined. Save the outrage for things that need it, IMHO.