3 ms·

The way I understand: Google has entered in private agreements and as a private company it can remove even a video celebrating your mom's bday, for reason or no

The way I understand: Google has entered in private agreements and as a private company it can remove even a video celebrating your mom's bday, for reason or no reason. >> The problem for McKelzey now is that he's picked up a strike in YouTube's two-strike system. According to the site's Terms of Service, YouTube can terminate an account if its found to be in violation of site rules more than once. Does that take Adsense, Adwords, GooglePlay, G+ and everything with it? If so, that's scary.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
You get 3 strikes and each strike expires after six months. http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2814000 http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  So use separate accounts if a Google Account has any value. The problem is that you get the infraction not for "breaking the law" but for breaking whatever private agreement Google signed with big music labels.
  - roel_v 14y ago
    The article states that in this case, the account was not penalized.
    - OGinparadise 14y ago
      Found the answer: "The problem for McKelzey now is that he's picked up a strike in YouTube's two-strike system. According to the site's Terms of Service, YouTube can terminate an account if its found to be in violation of site rules more than once. "Now I'm on their radar even though I don't believe I did anything wrong," McKelzey said."
ptaipale 14y ago
Are there still reasons Google cannot use, under U.S. law? At least in many European companies, particularly in matters of employment or offering services, improper reasons are illegal. For instance, you cannot deny service to someone on basis of race, skin colour, religion, etc. If you cannot prove you have any proper reason, a racist reason can be assumed and you're facing trouble.
- roel_v 14y ago
  If you add 'sex' to your list, you have a complete list (of the major factors that matter). So it's not like there are a whole lot of reasons. "If you cannot prove you have any proper reason, a racist reason can be assumed and you're facing trouble." No, this is not true. In the general case, the burden of proof is on the claimant, i.e. the person feeling discriminated against. There are specific circumstances where case law stipulates that discriminatory motifs may be assumed unless proven otherwise, but those are far and few in between, and to be interpreted narrowly.

MichaelApproved 14y ago

You get 3 strikes and each strike expires after six months. http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2814000 http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...

OGinparadise 14y ago
So use separate accounts if a Google Account has any value. The problem is that you get the infraction not for "breaking the law" but for breaking whatever private agreement Google signed with big music labels.
- roel_v 14y ago
  The article states that in this case, the account was not penalized.
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    Found the answer: "The problem for McKelzey now is that he's picked up a strike in YouTube's two-strike system. According to the site's Terms of Service, YouTube can terminate an account if its found to be in violation of site rules more than once. "Now I'm on their radar even though I don't believe I did anything wrong," McKelzey said."

ptaipale 14y ago

Are there still reasons Google cannot use, under U.S. law? At least in many European companies, particularly in matters of employment or offering services, improper reasons are illegal. For instance, you cannot deny service to someone on basis of race, skin colour, religion, etc. If you cannot prove you have any proper reason, a racist reason can be assumed and you're facing trouble.

roel_v 14y ago
If you add 'sex' to your list, you have a complete list (of the major factors that matter). So it's not like there are a whole lot of reasons. "If you cannot prove you have any proper reason, a racist reason can be assumed and you're facing trouble." No, this is not true. In the general case, the burden of proof is on the claimant, i.e. the person feeling discriminated against. There are specific circumstances where case law stipulates that discriminatory motifs may be assumed unless proven otherwise, but those are far and few in between, and to be interpreted narrowly.