I’m a huge fan of PragerU. Their video content is smart and does a great job of getting people to understand the issues. Most of their detractors won’t even try to debate PragerU on a logical basis. They simply want to shut down all dialogue they disagree with. But I agree 100% with the court in allowing YouTube to capriciously censor PragerU videos.
Ars Technica had an article yesterday regarding the first amendment ruling by the US appeals court which rejected PragerU’s claim.
PragerU said YouTube reduced its viewership and revenue with "arbitrary and capricious use of 'restricted mode' and 'demonetization' viewer restriction filters." PragerU claimed it was targeted by YouTube because of its "political identity and viewpoint as a non-profit that espouses conservative views on current and historical events."— Ars Technica, 2/26/20
I agree with the court not because I believe that PragerU needs to be censored. But I agree with the decision because I don’t think that YouTube needs a valid reason to censor. If YouTube came out tomorrow and said that they were going to boot all Republican channels, so be it. If they wanted to remove all videos by people with freckles and red hair, so what? They have the freedom to decide what to allow on their site. Even if it kills their business.
I remember being shocked that PragerU was suing YouTube demanding anything. And from self-professed conservatives no less. These guys are supposed to be the defenders of private property and against government interference.
The bottom line is this, YouTube is a private forum that is paid for by a private corporation. Alphabet’s shareholders own YouTube, not the US government. YouTube can do what they want with the platform they developed.
Just because YouTube is kind of like a public square doesn’t change the fact that it’s wholly owned by Alphabet. PragerU made the case that a privately owned forum which is akin to a public square requires the government to step in for the good of the public. This smacks of eminent domain. Another concept that conservatives love to rail against.
PragerU said YouTube reduced its viewership and revenue with "arbitrary and capricious use of 'restricted mode' and 'demonetization' viewer restriction filters." PragerU claimed it was targeted by YouTube because of its "political identity and viewpoint as a non-profit that espouses conservative views on current and historical events."— Ars Technica, 2/26/20
I agree with the court not because I believe that PragerU needs to be censored. But I agree with the decision because I don’t think that YouTube needs a valid reason to censor. If YouTube came out tomorrow and said that they were going to boot all Republican channels, so be it. If they wanted to remove all videos by people with freckles and red hair, so what? They have the freedom to decide what to allow on their site. Even if it kills their business.
I remember being shocked that PragerU was suing YouTube demanding anything. And from self-professed conservatives no less. These guys are supposed to be the defenders of private property and against government interference.
The bottom line is this, YouTube is a private forum that is paid for by a private corporation. Alphabet’s shareholders own YouTube, not the US government. YouTube can do what they want with the platform they developed.
Just because YouTube is kind of like a public square doesn’t change the fact that it’s wholly owned by Alphabet. PragerU made the case that a privately owned forum which is akin to a public square requires the government to step in for the good of the public. This smacks of eminent domain. Another concept that conservatives love to rail against.
RSS Feed