Fact: He violated terms of service as written out on paper Feeling: He did not violate YouTube terms of service because I believe people are too sensitive.
-
-
Replying to @OcarinaPolitics @destiny_theater and
They actually originally said he didn't violate it after extensive review. Then later changed it. That's a fact.
4 replies 2 retweets 130 likes -
Replying to @Moliminous @OcarinaPolitics and
Yes they did. In tweet [2/4] of that chain, they said that they did find language that was harmful, "but it didn't violate TOS". The problem is that harmful language in itself violates TOS... so how can it be both? Of course, it did violate, and they finally acknowledged it.
8 replies 1 retweet 74 likes -
Replying to @RoseAnatomy @OcarinaPolitics and
Wrong they literally said it didn't and harmful language is not a violation. Swearing is harmful but they don't ban people for saying fuck
5 replies 1 retweet 55 likes -
Replying to @Moliminous @RoseAnatomy and
Here are the relevant rules that are, obviously, broken by this content: Statements with no reasonable purpose other than to be harmful about an individual are EXPLICITLY against Youtube's rules. He is lucky he didn't get treated as hate speech and have his videos pulled.pic.twitter.com/ejXktauKX5
5 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @MJWhitehead @RoseAnatomy and
Cool we should get the site to rule on that, oh wait they did! And they said it didn't violate it
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Moliminous @RoseAnatomy and
And they were obviously incorrect and changed their mind when challenged on it. They admitted the relevant rules were broken in their initial, wrong decision, that it was harmful statements- see bullet point #3 in the above image. You don't have a leg to stand on.
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @MJWhitehead @RoseAnatomy and
They never recanted on that and had to add entire new clauses to cover it. You're literally arguing against their rulings
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Moliminous @RoseAnatomy and
Yes, I am arguing that the initial ruling was wrong, by their own ToS and the facts they admitted. If a company posts rules like this, it needs to amend them if they think they are wrong, not go around making decisions that don't follow their own rules without telling us why.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @MJWhitehead @RoseAnatomy and
They didn't admit they we're wrong and found in favor of Crowder. After backlash from retards, they litterally changed the rules so they could demonitize him as a peace offering. Arguing against you isn't even fun if you're not pretending to be this retarded on purpose seek help
5 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Rose Anatomy Retweeted Shaun
https://twitter.com/shaun_jen/status/1136068719262752769?s=19 … It's really quite simple.
Rose Anatomy added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.