Absolute BS. The only reason you would perceive YT to be "left-leaning" is that advertisers in general don't want to be associated with alt-right content. YT is merely mirroring the biases of the advertisers.
A 9th circuit judge (inarguably a left leaning court) has stated in a lawsuit involving Google (YouTube) and PragerU (far from alt-right), that claiming YouTube acts in a neutral way is "puffery" (yes that's a legal term).
> A 9th circuit judge (inarguably a left leaning court) has stated in a lawsuit involving Google (YouTube) and PragerU (far from alt-right), that claiming YouTube acts in a neutral way is "puffery" (yes that's a legal term).
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.
Prager's lawsuit claims that YouTube's censorship is violating their first amendment rights. This is simply bullshit, since first amendment rights don't apply to a private company like YouTube. YouTube has the right to remove / restrict whatever it likes on it's own site.
I'm curious: currently I'm sure Youtube relies on the "Safe Harbour" clauses to not be liably for what people post. But once they actively curate the content (and not just for Terms of Service violation but for actual content), does this not mean they would lose this protection?
The context of the lawsuit is irrelevant to the courts statement on puffery aside from being the initiating reason the statement on puffery was made (which we already knew).
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.
For the record, the utility arguments and size and such put aside (rabbit hole not relevant per say), in general, I don't think a private company should be compelled into any speech (including this lawsuit, which, as of now I probably disagree with.)
So to conclude, your context / commentary, although appreciated, does not change my statement.
What about the ban of any gun related videos? Isn't that political censorship? Did you already watch Youtube CEO's (Susan Wojcicki) comments on anything political?
Youtube is a private entity and they don't have any obligation to be neutral. They only have to pretend to be.
Everything I've read has stated the bans and deletions will go in affect at the end of this month. Down to the wire but if true there will be a lot of "where is your god now?" examples to this idea that YouTube won't enforce its own rules: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en
Those rules don't ban everything gun related though, just selling and modification. Although if Forgotten Weapons gets caught up in that because they're for auction that would be a real shame.
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.
