censorship Googles Sued For Censoring Conservative PragerU

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

another one that doesn't understand how this works... when will it end?

 

Freedom of speech means you can stand on the street-corner and say whatever you want, and no one can shut you up or take you away.

It does not mean you can go up to someone's house or business and demand they build you a pedestal from which to shout whilst on their property.

I agree with you freedom of speech and the first amendment, but (and you knew there was a but) if Google/Youtube invites the public to post content on their platform, then they need to be held accountable if they don't apply their rules uniformly.  I'm not talking about government interference, rather that I think PU may have a case if YT is applying the rules to some videos but not others.

 

If monetary gain wasn't involved (which again is offered by YT, not in spite of the platform), I'd say they should just deal with it and move on.  Since YT makes it possible for individuals/companies to profit from their platform, they have a responsibility to apply rules equally across the board to all.  To not do so invites lawsuits such as this one.

1 hour ago, Shreyas1 said:

I thought that the Republican Party in America wanted companies to have free speech? This is working out good for the Democrats. Either way, they win

What does PU have to do with the Republican party?  Besides, Republican =/= conservative.  While most conservatives tend to gather under the banner of the Republicans, there's a large number of liberals (or at least "moderates", who are basically liberal 'lite') who do as well.

[Blade of Grass]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

If monetary gain wasn't involved (which again is offered by YT, not in spite of the platform), I'd say they should just deal with it and move on.  Since YT makes it possible for individuals/companies to profit from their platform, they have a responsibility to apply rules equally across the board to all.  To not do so invites lawsuits such as this one.

The only responsibility they have to their clients (partners?) are what is set out in the contract, which is what makes this suit odd, because they're not suing for breach of contract. 

 

But again, I suspect this is probably because the advertisers didn't want to be associated with the channel more than anything else, which is very likely accounted for in the contract. Tech companies do a lot to try and prevent ads being shown on controversial content (controversial, from their advertisers perspective) because historically they've had large advertisers drop them immediately after incidents. 

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

The only responsibility they have to their clients (partners?) are what is set out in the contract, which is what makes this suit odd, because they're not suing for breach of contract. 

 

But again, I suspect this is probably because the advertisers didn't want to be associated with the channel more than anything else, which is very likely accounted for in the contract. Tech companies do a lot to try and prevent ads being shown on controversial content (controversial, from their advertisers perspective) because historically they've had large advertisers drop them immediately after incidents. 

Except the OP already posted a quote that other YT channels posted on the same topics - often with vulgarity or worse - yet were not demonetized.  That directly implies that they're not applying the rules uniformly.

2 hours ago, Weak1ings said:

" The site alleges other videos discussing the same issues by Al Jazeera, Buzzfeed, Bill Maher and the History Channel were not censored, despite some of those talks containing profanity or graphic depictions of mature content. "

[Blade of Grass]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except the OP already posted a quote that other YT channels posted on the same topics - often with vulgarity or worse - yet were not demonetized.  That directly implies that they're not applying the rules uniformly.

I think you missed part of my comment

Quote

Tech companies do a lot to try and prevent ads being shown on controversial content (controversial, from their advertisers perspective) because historically they've had large advertisers drop them immediately after incidents. 

Content from a major news organization is one of those "Oh hey, this is controversial... but its the NYT so it's fine".

[Shreyas1]

21 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

 

What does PU have to do with the Republican party?

http://www.dennisprager.com/proud-to-be-a-republican/

 

Dennis Prager himself said he is proud to be a Republican 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Blade of Grass said:

I think you missed part of my comment

Content from a major news organization is one of those "Oh hey, this is controversial... but its the NYT so it's fine".

Unless an advertiser is paying extra for directed ads, I'm fairly certain (though I admit I could be mistaken) that the ads are generalized by Google's algorithm.  That means it's Google pulling the monetization, not the advertisers.

 

Also, your comment doesn't address that channels for "Al Jazeera" and "Buzzfeed" were allegedly not demonetized for the same content.  While I have no love for the New York Slimes, I acknowledge there are many who still consider them reputable.  I can't imagine what advertisers would consider those sources as reputable.

[Jito463]

Just now, Shreyas1 said:

http://www.dennisprager.com/proud-to-be-a-republican/

 

Dennis Prager himself said he is proud to be a Republican 

And?  Being a Republican doesn't automatically mean he represents the party.  I was a Republican until Trump, my actions didn't define the party.  I think you need to educate yourself on what the parties really are.

[Blade of Grass]

14 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Unless an advertiser is paying extra for directed ads, I'm fairly certain (though I admit I could be mistaken) that the ads are generalized by Google's algorithm.  That means it's Google pulling the monetization, not the advertisers.

Google runs an ad exchange. Basically, whenever you visit a web page, an auction is held for people to sell an ad to 'you' (kind of? in reality they only get a kind-of ad profile for you, if you meet their target criteria they place a bid). The servers participating in this bidding can be one of Google's (if you use DoubleClick), or some other sort of advertising platform which interacts with Google. 

 

Anyway, the point is, the advertiser doesn't "pay extra for directed ads", instead, they set budgets for spending on each of their target platforms. If they discover that you're placing their ads on content which they dislike, all they need to do is set the budget to 0 to "pull out" from your platform. 

Quote

Also, your comment doesn't address that channels for "Al Jazeera" and "Buzzfeed" were allegedly not demonetized for the same content.  While I have no love for the New York Slimes, I acknowledge there are many who still consider them reputable.  I can't imagine what advertisers would consider those sources as reputable.

And that's entirely fair. BuzzFeed News (note, this is different from BuzzFeed Entertainment, couple years ago they seperated them and hired a bunch of super legit journalists from the likes of Politico, etc) is actually a pretty reputable source (recently they released a great in-depth investigative piece on Breitbart). I know less of Al Jazeera, but as far as I know they've never been too egregious (anymore than any other state run news organization).

 

Regardless of all of this, it's down to the advertisers themselves to decide who they're willing to be shown next too, so beyond what I've said, IDK really what to say

[DutchTexan]

If this was the other way around with a 'left leaning' political organization suing a behemoth institute for what they see as unfair or unreasonable, THEN I doubt there would be so much "lolol so wat get rekt cry 1^st amendment not 4 u" sentiment.

[Jito463]

6 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Regardless of all of this, it's down to the advertisers themselves to decide who they're willing to be shown next too, so beyond what I've said, IDK really what to say

I don't know what more to say, either.  I was never trying to argue that YT was absolutely in the wrong, merely stating that I believe PU could have a case.

43 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not talking about government interference, rather that I think PU may have a case if YT is applying the rules to some videos but not others.

Whether they'll succeed or not.....?

 

[Blade of Grass]

Although this discussion has been going well so far, it was brought to our attention that it is still a political one. Sadly, that means we have to lock it per the CS. 

 

Don't worry, I only gave myself a warning for talking about politics