YouTube didn’t publicly make that claim though, so they haven’t done any defamation.
Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 3 weeks ago
Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.
YouTube didn’t publicly make that claim though, so they haven’t done any defamation.
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.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Exactly, I haven’t read the ToS to see if it is defined or references anything in there. I usually default to the standard definition of a word unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, Sony changed the definition of purchase to remove any notion of ownership when buying content on their streaming platform.