(1/4) Thanks again for taking the time to share all of this information with us. We take allegations of harassment very seriously–we know this is important and impacts a lot of people.
-
-
Replying to @TeamYouTube @gaywonk
(2/4) Our teams spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged to us, and while we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don’t violate our policies. We’ve included more info below to explain this decision:
2,357 replies 275 retweets 5,462 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @gaywonk
(3/4) As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone–from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts–to express their opinions w/in the scope of our policies. Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site.
1,263 replies 382 retweets 5,328 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @gaywonk
(4/4) Even if a video remains on our site, it doesn’t mean we endorse/support that viewpoint. There are other aspects of the channel that we’re still evaluating– we’ll be in touch with any further updates.
2,757 replies 177 retweets 3,817 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @gaywonk
Update on our continued review–we have suspended this channel’s monetization. We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies. More here:https://yt.be/help/xLtT
4,286 replies 221 retweets 2,433 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There’s a difference between a private entity (YouTube) deciding who gets to use its platform (using YouTube is not a constitutional right), and POTUS denying a journalist access for political reasons, despite the 1st am. Press protections.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CatLadyLawyer @TeamYouTube and
So if youtube is a private entity that refuses customer service, what is a bakery that refuses customer service?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shimauma2 @TeamYouTube and
(1) In CO, there was a state law that the bakery broke by refusing services to gay people. They mounted a successful challenge to that statute on the basis that it violated the baker’s 1st am free speech/religious freedom rights. Here, there is no such law YouTube would be
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CatLadyLawyer @shimauma2 and
(2) breaking by banning this guy from their platform, and by the reasoning of the very case you allude to, they’re clearly within they’re own 1st Am rights to do so.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm betting the Supreme Court would Trump unconstitutional state laws.
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.