Crowder for instance didn't break any of their rules and they kicked him off the partnership program. So the false advertising stems from the fact they advertise a social partnership program but don't fairly enforce their rules. Twitter and FB are both facing lawsuits for similar things although I don't have those deets on hand but they aren't too difficult to find.
I don't think 230 protects them from this either.
Anyone engaging in online censorship should also be stripped of any government funding or tax breaks. Government funding shouldn't be a thing in the first place but this should be a crux to get rid of it
I would maybe call it that had they issued a strike for past content. Taking down past content, while petty, I wouldn't call censorship alone if they aren't enforcing things unevenly
The thing people really seem to be missing is that this isn't even taking down past content, it's privating the video until she edits out a bit with graphic violence (filmed by the perpetrator) that goes against what Youtube wants, and then the video can go right back up. Nothing about editing her opinion at all.
What are they falsely advertising?
Crowder for instance didn't break any of their rules and they kicked him off the partnership program. So the false advertising stems from the fact they advertise a social partnership program but don't fairly enforce their rules. Twitter and FB are both facing lawsuits for similar things although I don't have those deets on hand but they aren't too difficult to find.
I don't think 230 protects them from this either.
Anyone engaging in online censorship should also be stripped of any government funding or tax breaks. Government funding shouldn't be a thing in the first place but this should be a crux to get rid of it
That's a better example of censorship than this. This simply isn't political censorship.
I would maybe call it that had they issued a strike for past content. Taking down past content, while petty, I wouldn't call censorship alone if they aren't enforcing things unevenly
The thing people really seem to be missing is that this isn't even taking down past content, it's privating the video until she edits out a bit with graphic violence (filmed by the perpetrator) that goes against what Youtube wants, and then the video can go right back up. Nothing about editing her opinion at all.