People should not forget that Youtube is an extremely left leaning organization and therefore polices videos under that angle.
Most people in tech are left leaning (especially in the Bay area) and as such this is not seen as a big deal, but this censorship is growing and it is one of the biggest democratic danger at the moment.
Just so you know :)
It also does, since I was providing the content of the lawsuit that he happened to fail to mention.
The court could have made the same statement without Prager filing the suit and it would still be accurate. The context doesn’t change the fact of the statement. So again, your providing context does not change or challenge peterhandlaw’s point r.e. Puffery.
So to conclude, your context / commentary, although appreciated, does not change my statement.
No they didn't. The judge wrote that YouTube's marketing statements about hosting a diversity of videos and "giving people a voice" can't be used by the plaintiff to bring a false advertising claim when youtube takes down a video.
The judgement is saying that statements that are obviously "puffery" can't be used as the basis for false advertising, not that claiming YouTube "acts in a neutral way" is inherently "puffery":
> None of the statements about YouTube’s viewpoint neutrality identified by Plaintiff resembles the kinds of “quantifiable” statements about the “specific or absolute characteristics of a product” that are actionable under the Lanham Act. Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053. Rather, the statements are vague representations about how YouTube is generally “committed to fostering a community where everyone’s voice can be heard” and providing “opportunities” for people from all over to share their diverse “point[s] of view.” Compl. ¶¶ 3, 28.
> The statements do not say anything specific about YouTube’s “mission” to “give people a voice,” and make no concrete and measurable guarantees or representations about the “opportunities” made available for people to express themselves “no matter where they are from or what their age or point of view.” Id. ¶ 28.
> As a result, the Court concludes that these statements are neither “[]likely to induce consumer reliance,” Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053, nor “capable of being proved false,” Coastal Abstract, 173 F.3d at 731, and are therefore non-actionable puffery under the Lanham Act.
Youtube is a private entity and they don't have any obligation to be neutral. They only have to pretend to be.
Go there and search. There are plenty of gun related videos, as well as plenty of videos complaining about youtube banning gun videos.
There's nothing new here though. "Guns" are a special category of product that were already excluded from many online sites, e.g. eBay, Amazon, Craigslist, and more. That's why you have GunBrokers, Bud's Gun Shop, Armslist, etc.; there's a whole parallel ecosystem of sites related to guns that exist because the biggest sites in those fields don't allow guns. Having a separate video site would fit well into that paradigm.
For another parallel, look at porn.
As I read the article, Youtube is dropping accounts based on potential copyright liability issues or insufficient advertiser appeal. I suppose you must have read between the lines to find the part where it's all really about Youtube's leftist ideology.
I'm too lazy to try and find a more recent source, but a 2010 CBS report showed that, of the top 15 recipients of donations from Google execs, 12 of the donations were to Democrats (accounting for about 90% of the donated dollars in the shown group). Sure, that's individuals and not the org, but it clearly indicates that leadership leans left... which means the org does too.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-political-donations-wher...
It's also worth mentioning that the Democrats are right wing to the many nations in the rest of the world.
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/01/13/google-and-facebook-gi...
https://www.autostraddle.com/why-is-youtube-demonetizing-lgb...
Atheist channels:
https://www.holykoolaid.com/is-youtube-censoring-atheists/
And the person who tried to kill YouTube employees was a vegan.
It has nothing to do with YouTube and everything to do with advertisers actually having control of what they want their ads to appear on.
Somehow everything is a conspiracy against "conservatives." It's so sad that the Party of Reagan has resorted to miring itself in constant outrage. This is an extremely dangerous mindset, this is how you get people to shoot up pizzerias due to nut job conspiracies.
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/man-with-rifle-enters-comet-ping-...