
Vimeo deletes Project Veritas account after report highlighting Google AI bias - nkkollaw
https://reclaimthenet.org/project-veritas-banned-from-vimeo/
======
stevenicr
I had an account at Vimeo removed some time ago. It was bizarre to go back and
forth about why. They had playboy and other nudity on site, we pointed to that
being more nude than what we had published (which was sexual in ways, but no
nudity) - and this was a paid / upgraded / pro account - a few hundred bucks.
Long story shortened they said their determination was based upon a site
linked or mentioned in the videos / profile that had more explicit content on
a subpage. So it wasn't the videos we made specifically for vimeo publishing
(wasted time and money) - but part of what had been promoted was against some
editorial something or another.

I pointed out content on their site that was way over the line of what they
had issue with on that sub page - and they said something like 'don't do as
they do, their (other accounts on vimeo that were not banned) stuff was not
indicative of what was okay on vimeo'

All in all it's fine with me, they can do things however they want, it's a
privately owned site not a gov portal, it was just so frustrating trying to
make content that fit and going through so many things only to get banned for
some unwritten rule.

So I used to recommend them over youtube, but that was a long time ago. Now I
strongly suggest not to use them or depend on them for anything.

~~~
insickness
> only to get banned for some unwritten rule

This is the biggest problem with tech censorship. I have no problem with them
making up whatever rule they want. But no one knows the exact rules which
makes it seem like they apply their rules unevenly, which reeks of bias.

------
Animats
Site seems to be an ad farm.

Actual Project Veritas site.[1]

[1] [https://www.projectveritas.com](https://www.projectveritas.com)

------
nullc
To anyone working at a company doing this sort of stuff: The standard you walk
past, is the standard you accept.

------
dkraft
Are these comments for real? How can anyone be against the truth? The whole
point to PV was taping facts. None of the content has ever been debunked.

------
llao
Nothing to miss by avoiding a visit, trust me.

That website reeks of low quality outrage content, it even has the typical
Youtubey thumbnails.

------
tomlockwood
Isn't this project the same project that did the highly edited ACORN video
recording gotchas to generate outrage on the right?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy)

------
stareatgoats
Taken at face value these allegations (revelations?) are concerning. I buy
that Google is not a public utility, and as a private company they have the
right to do as they like, but the ethics detection indicators start pointing
to nefarious when they use their monopoly status to actively influence
politics.

Problem is we can't trust this source, he's been using dirty tactics before.
Still, someone needs to publish a rebuttal with a satisfactory level of
transparency that explains some of the statements in this video. And the
discussion that should ensue is definitely of general interest, and should not
be knee-jerkingly flagged into oblivion IMO.

~~~
nullc
> indicators start pointing to nefarious when they use their monopoly status
> to actively influence politics

The actions described in the video sound like things which could easily be an
unlawful violation of campaign finance laws, as well.

It's a set of serious accusations that deserve a coherent response, not being
aggressively muted from the internet (presumably via bogus trade secret
accusations).

------
Barrin92
Isn't that the James O' Keefe right wing grifter business that taped
journalists. Good, close the entire shop down for all I care.

~~~
notadev
Because it's not something you personally agree with?

~~~
sprafa
They generally do highly deceptive editing. As a filmmaker you can always
smell a rat from how they edit videos.

~~~
Grue3
So does Michael Moore, but nobody's banning him as far as I'm aware.

~~~
igetspam
He's become incredibly irrelevant to the world now though. Were he to make
headlines again, I'd wager that his shady tactics would no longer be discussed
in relative obscurity but be actual news.

~~~
Grue3
Implying James O'Keefe isn't even more irrelevant.

~~~
igetspam
Yes because Moore doesn't make the news any more. This is the first discussion
I've seen about him in a while.

