Like google, I’m sure Jeff has a near unlimited supply of money to pay lawyers.
db2@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sue YouTube. They won’t change meaningfully until forced to.
YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
But being a pushover is not the answer, so…
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
It absolutely is on an individual level in a system where capital decides who writes the laws and who gets justice. The way you push back is by organizing as a class or at least a group.
entwine413@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Neither is throwing money away on a lawsuit.
fodor@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I think what you mean to say is that we should be pressuring public officials to try to bust up Google’s monopoly on many things. And we are doing that, and it is showing some progress. But there is much more work to be done.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.
Ulrich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I mean maybe if YT said that? The only thing they said is that it’s “harmful” somehow. And they won’t elaborate anymore than that.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
If harmful isn’t defined in the ToS, then the Merriam Webster definition will likely be construed to mean to be harmful to YouTube’s business or to users. Although YouTube has been selective in this enforcement, ie not banning all videos pertaining to martial arts or fighting clips, drug use, or ad block tutorials.
Ulrich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
That just answers a question that no one is asking. This is not an issue of defining words, it’s an issue of what the words are referring to, exactly.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
YouTube didn’t publicly make that claim though, so they haven’t done any defamation.