The fundamental argument is YouTube proffered the public with the promise that they were a platform for public speech. There was nothing in their terms of agreement that stated that you would be censored if they didn’t agree with your political view.
They are a multi-billion dollar corporation which was built on this proffer and agreement. They lied.
Prager U could have used a different platform if they were told this up front, that they’d be censored.
Youtube would not have grown to the height they achieved had this, there predilection for censoring conservative viewpoints, been in the terms of agreement.
Certainly they would have had more competition had this been their business model from day one. Instead, they allowed customers to build their brands on a platform where they were doomed from the start.
In short, Youtube committed fraud.
How difficult is it to understand that when you offer people one product, yet deliver another, it is fraud?
If a car dealer offers me a brand new Cadillac, fully loaded, takes my money, then gives me a 1978 beat-up Volkswagen, are you going to say, “Well, they’re a private company and they can give you what they want”.
Or let’s say you offer El Chapo, 2 tons of coke and take his money. Then you dump him off a couple hundred pounds of Mexican dirt weed. Are you going to tell him, “Well, I’m a private company, so I can give you what I want. Too bad.”
Many say that the TOA say “we reserve the right to do whatever the hell we want with you and your content.”
The lawyer explains why this is not a valid term. It’s essentially how the banks got fined in the housing crisis.
If a baker has to bake a cake for gay clients then youtube, facebook, twitter, etc., must accommodate conservatives.
In 1977 GM was sued for putting Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles and Buicks.
Even thought it was a corporate engine, they lost because of False advertising, the premise being that if you bought an Oldsmobile, it should have an Oldsmobile engine in it.
So there is an example, or precedent, that is far less egregious that anything You Tube, Twitter or Facebook is doing!
YouTube did build a brand on public free speech.
Then Google bought them and that all changed.
Google’s “do no evil” motto did nothing but evil to YouTube.
As I’ve said…
Google is a communist plot to take over the world.
“If a baker has to bake a cake for gay clients then youtube, facebook, twitter, etc., must accommodate conservatives.”
No, that’s different. Christers, right wing nutjobs and live birthers have the moral obligation to keep their destructive opinions out of public view, else they’re guilty of viewpoint-rape.
GoogleTube can do what it wants as a private entity because it agrees with me.