Like google, I’m sure Jeff has a near unlimited supply of money to pay lawyers.
db2@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Sue YouTube. They won’t change meaningfully until forced to.
YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
But being a pushover is not the answer, so…
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 day 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 1 day ago
Neither is throwing money away on a lawsuit.
fodor@lemmy.zip 1 day 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 1 day ago
Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day ago
YouTube didn’t publicly make that claim though, so they haven’t done any defamation.