YouTube, breach of contract & "free speech"

[Perd Hapley]

If you didn't know, Prager U. is bringing a lawsuit against YouTube for demonetizing their videos, as they have done to many other right-leaning channels.

https://ricochet.com/464590/youtube-praegerus-lawsuit/

According to the above, the first amendment argument is just there to get media attention, and their real argument is about breach of contract. I hope Prager has loads of money, or is getting a whole lot of legal defense donations, or pro bono.

[MechAg94]

I was wondering if it would come to this.  When people start looking to youtube as an income, it can get serious.  If nothing else, it would be interesting if they are granted discovery. 

[MechAg94]

I noticed a few youtube channels I browse have started posted on Vidme also.  These are sword and ancient weapon guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y3lXpXAvRg
One of them got banned for some reason, but 3 or 4 others posted videos talking about it.  I hadn't heard of Vidme until it was mentioned.  I think the guy's account was reinstated.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzb8U0Bje5A
He is a bit long winded but essentially he says he tried to get Youtube to tell him how they calculated the ad earnings and got nowhere.  Getting information like that in discovery would be interesting.

[T.O.M.]

1A argument is likely a loser.  People seem to keep forgetting that 1A is a restriction on the government.  It has not been extended to private entities who restrict speech.  I honestly doubt it will.  Their best bet will be the contract action.  But, like Fistful said, unless Prager has a bunch of cash, or gets legal representation at no cost (contingency fee agreement), don't know that this will go far.  After all, YouTube is a part of Google, and Google could drop a few million on this case without breaking a sweat.

[dogmush]

Prager put out a video explaining their case. They got the attorneys to discount the fees.

[Perd Hapley]

https://ricochet.com/466171/who-censors-youtube-maybe-not-google/

It would be bad for Google if it turned out that they were using left-wing political groups to target conservative YouTube videos, and it could very well result in financial loss to them, as well as loss of goodwill and public trust. Especially since they have been deliberately secretive about the inner workings of their review process. However, that is not the most disturbing line of thought.

What if some of these hypothetical organizations with the power to restrict YouTube videos are in receipt of public funds, like (say) Planned Parenthood? I don’t think one has to subscribe to the conspiracy theory of history to imagine that that particular organization would be keen to get involved in flagging YouTube videos, given half a chance. And there are probably a lot more like that. It might explain (since Google won’t) how pro-life videos like this one have been restricted. Was it on the say-so of a publicly-funded body? That would surely be unconstitutional, and a slam-dunk for PragerU.

Interesting.