PragerU videos are some of the silliest ■■■■ I’ve ever seen on YouTube.
1 Like
Here is another perspective that shows how callous Youtubes can be.
Four years should be enough time to comply…
The government will need to be involved at some point.
Hear that? The sound of another conservative principle being flushed down the toilet.
5 Likes
Youtube is not unique in that regard. This website’s terms of service also argues both sides.
User Materials
iHeartMedia does not control and is not responsible for any notes, messages, billboard postings, ideas, suggestions, concepts or other material, or files delivered to iHeartMedia by you or other users (collectively, “User Materials”). iHeartMedia is not obligated to and does not regularly review, prescreen, monitor, delete, or edit User Materials. However, iHeartMedia reserves the right to do so at any time in its sole discretion, for any reason or no reason, and to refuse, delete, move or edit any User Materials, in whole or in part, with or without notice. iHeartMedia is not responsible or liable for damages of any kind arising from any User Materials even when iHeartMedia is advised of the possibility of such damages, or from iHeartMedia’s alteration or deletion of any User Materials.
That distinction is simply too outdated for 21st century corporations hosting user content on the internet, so they all just put their feet on both sides of the line.
Are you of the opinion that one’s religious freedoms protected under the 1st, supersedes established law? And if so, where is that line drawn? If at all?
I am not sure why PragerU would be restricted it’s fairly tame compared to a lot of the other stuff floating around on YouTube. The people I have seen on that channel doing videos are talking typical republican talking points. It’s not like Richard Spencer is up there preaching what’s next ban “The Blaze”.
Reminds me of the show “The View” it’s not the view it’s “A View” which is shared by half the country, the other half of the country isn’t calling for it to banned.
How so? As they get told about the video’s or find them they delete them. Is google supposed to have access to every person’s computer to delete the video’s off them so they can’t be re-uploaded?
Sorry to spoil your bias.
It is really pathetic that they can’t take a murder vid off the platform…in FOUR years.
Tell me about bakers explicitly violating public accommodation laws, hypocrite.
Can you point to a single video of that, that has remained on the platform without deletion for 4 continuous years?
And for the love of God, whoever told you using emoji like that is cool was lying to you. They’re used in place of words.
2 Likes
That’s why I’m not certain the ruling is wrong. But it is too simplistic.
If those distinctions are no longer relevant, those laws need changed, not ignored.
1 Like
They seem to stay on top of copyright music.
So yes they need to pursue this with even more vigor.
Is that a shiny object I am supposed to chase?
The law was changed - in 1996. The distinction has not been relevant for 24 years.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider
Super convenient, your positions on what private businesses should be able to do, one is explicitly violating the law and you defend them, one is not and you want them to do what you want because it hurts your feelings. Ironic.
1 Like
If that’s true in practice, why does this website care if we posters post copyrighted material?
What law is being broken by the video in question?
I gave my response.
The safe harbor of Section 230 does not include protection from intellectual property claims, or criminal law claims, as per the statute.
1 Like
