So as most of us are already aware, for a while now YouTube has been demonitizing certain videos for “not being advertiser friendly” (or rather coorporation for “LITTLE TIMMY ISN’T ABLE TO WATCH THIS”), however has been incredibly vague about its guidelines. Not to mention alot of the content that does get demonetized is content that tends to be from conservative or anti-SJW channels, with Youtube especially focused on that sort, even when said channels publish content adhering to the guidelines, and even going as far as to place false copyright claims on said videos.
And considering that some have even speculated that YouTube is using a blacklist rather than an algorithm to demonitize videos, as well as the MSM freaking about ever since the 2016 election, along with social media sites like Twitter being more actively anti-conservstive, and Google firing someone who criticized the company’s echo chamber, it does seem that alot of YouTube’s actions are politically-driven. And this case might affect that though.
While I probably wouldn’t agree with PragerU’s ideals, I do think this case will cause some kind of discussion on whether or not private companies should adhere to the 1st Ammendment – like seriously that is a common argument that people throw, that “YouTube is a private company therefore they can do whatever they want”.
Which to that I have to say
1) Remember when a Christain baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they were a same-sex couple?
2) Is it really good for business if a company is deliberately treating one group of customers over another group based on their political views?
3) Google/YouTube can technicallt be considered a “public service” since it practically has a monopoly on its market
Here is a good video that elaborates on points 2 and 3.
Considering the constant downward SJW spiral Google and YouTube have been going down, (and how there was a similar situation where a law professor suing Alamo Drafthouse for its women only screenings of Winder Woman lead to said screenings turning out to be illegal after all) I would like to see how this case plays out and how it will affect YouTube in the long run.
Any thoughts y’all have on this?
This is a hell of a tightrope to walk… Libertarian pro-business “they can do as they please”, or my disgust over YouTube being information gatekeepers…
I can’t comment, but I lean in favor of the later.
Well there has been an update on the matter. And YouTube is basically doubling down on their stance.
As for YouTube’s Restricted mode being “designed to prevent children from viewing age-inappropriate content”, don’t they literally have a separate version of YouTube called YouTube Kids for that?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.