Lawsuit by Black YouTubers against YouTube faces “uphill battle”
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Wow, like the last seven paragraphs of that article. YouTube's demonitization here is working as intended I'm pretty confident in saying.
Upvote
118
(118
/
0)
Sounds like ambulance chasing by a law firm that went hunting for some pissed off people to use as plaintiffs. Doesn't sound like they found particularly upstanding and likable plaintiffs either.
These kinds of lawsuits do nothing for the causes they purport to defend.
If there was any kind of discrimination by YouTube, whether purposeful or accidental, I would hope they would fix it. However, I've not seen any clear evidence of such discrimination (and it doesn't make sense for them to broadly discriminate from a business perspective). And, even if they were, as the article states, they would be within their legal rights.
These kinds of lawsuits do nothing for the causes they purport to defend.
If there was any kind of discrimination by YouTube, whether purposeful or accidental, I would hope they would fix it. However, I've not seen any clear evidence of such discrimination (and it doesn't make sense for them to broadly discriminate from a business perspective). And, even if they were, as the article states, they would be within their legal rights.
Upvote
82
(83
/
-1)
This article is a wild ride. Seems like the plaintiffs are clowns.
Also thank you for teaching this simple man the word "bowdlerization"
Also thank you for teaching this simple man the word "bowdlerization"
Upvote
79
(79
/
0)
You could put this down as a dictionary definition for hypocrisy. What a ridiculous lawsuit.
Upvote
46
(47
/
-1)
Ah, what a fine law firm to promote the cause of what appear to be such fine, fine examples of the algorithm failing to work. Sure, the case of Chinese government-prompted comment censorship quickly and easily comes to mind here. But we'd be giving into the fallacy of saying oranges and apples are the same if we give these heinous videos the same weight of undue (if not unjust) censorship.
YouTube has issues with the content hosted on the site, as it pertains to hate speech, the promotion of violence, and derogatory/libelous attacks. The four plaintiffs here don't pass my sniff test, based on the evidence here provided, of demonstrating a racially-based pattern of actions to limit their privileges as creators.
Racism is structural, race/ethnic/geographic-based prejudice is only a part of it. Just because you are part of a social group which suffers under racism does not excuse you from exhibiting prejudice towards others. Also, as a member of their same social/ethnic group, how dare you continue this awful chain of human interaction. Shame on you and may the courts say the same.
YouTube has issues with the content hosted on the site, as it pertains to hate speech, the promotion of violence, and derogatory/libelous attacks. The four plaintiffs here don't pass my sniff test, based on the evidence here provided, of demonstrating a racially-based pattern of actions to limit their privileges as creators.
Racism is structural, race/ethnic/geographic-based prejudice is only a part of it. Just because you are part of a social group which suffers under racism does not excuse you from exhibiting prejudice towards others. Also, as a member of their same social/ethnic group, how dare you continue this awful chain of human interaction. Shame on you and may the courts say the same.
Upvote
20
(23
/
-3)
When Tim was researching this article he would send me examples from these videos asking if they were things that would be moderated on Ars. Every time it was an easy "oh yeah, for sure" answer.
Moderating is hard. But sometimes it's easy.
Moderating is hard. But sometimes it's easy.
Upvote
129
(130
/
-1)
There is a concept of "clean hands"; this is a shit show instead.
On a separate note, there were a lot of words wasted over what looks to be correctly, albeit imperfect, YouTube handling.
On a separate note, there were a lot of words wasted over what looks to be correctly, albeit imperfect, YouTube handling.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
I'm all for YouTube to have clearer rules, avoid content claiming abuse, support the rightful artists and so on.
But this case won't help it.
I'm not even sure why this is worth mentioning in the news. We shouldn't spend a second in this delusional crap.
But this case won't help it.
I'm not even sure why this is worth mentioning in the news. We shouldn't spend a second in this delusional crap.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
That's every YouTube creator ever. YouTube's algorithms are opaque (even to YouTube a lot of the time) and change constantly and their creator support is basically non-existent. Even huge successful channels just basically throw up their hands and shrug when asked about details of things like that, because nobody knows.
There's a lot to criticize YouTube for, but racism is not one of them.
Upvote
61
(62
/
-1)
It's not analogous to an "Uncle Tom" as it's just a general slur for black people generating from and primarily used in the Cajun south.
Upvote
7
(11
/
-4)
That video is painful to watch. It's not getting her point across in a constructive way, it's rather unproductive. 16:29 is off the rails.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
For that reason, I'd say all that talk about "section 230 protecting YouTube" is off the mark. The First Amendment protects YouTube. Section 230 just makes it easier to get the case dismissed early.
Hate speech isn't illegal in the United States. A lot of the speech described in this article is reprehensible and I'd be totally in favor of YouTube banning those accounts -- which is YouTube's right, under the First Amendment, just like not banning them is -- but I'm not seeing any examples of unprotected speech here (such as true threats or incitement). Maybe there's something in the claims beyond what's described in the article and I'm just missing it.
What section 230 says is "even if the stuff people are saying on YouTube is illegal, YouTube isn't responsible for it." Which is good, and it's a good thing we've got section 230 in place to get suits like this dismissed early. But this seems like a case where there's no legal liability to be had by anyone, intermediary or otherwise, because this is protected speech.
Putting pressure on YouTube to remove those videos is a good idea -- but I think it should be social and financial pressure, not legal pressure. As far as I can tell, this lawsuit doesn't have merit and is the wrong way of moving forward.
Upvote
35
(36
/
-1)
The irony is, if Trump and Barr got what they wanted (and Section 230 was repealed), then YouTube would have more incentive to actively ban token black conservatives (and a lot more hatemongers who identify as “conservatives” these days), instead of just demonetize them.
Without Section 230 immunity, rather than risk the liability or even just the legal cost of continuing lawsuits that can’t immediately be dismissed, they’d be eager to ban anything that could be construed as defamatory or harmful. Twitter wouldn’t want to eat the cost of defending its right to host those users’ content, it would just ban them quickly.
Getting rid of Section 230 will literally have the opposite effect of what they wanted. It will incentivize dumping angry, riled up users posting political garbage, which will by necessity include most present-day “conservative” users...
Without Section 230 immunity, rather than risk the liability or even just the legal cost of continuing lawsuits that can’t immediately be dismissed, they’d be eager to ban anything that could be construed as defamatory or harmful. Twitter wouldn’t want to eat the cost of defending its right to host those users’ content, it would just ban them quickly.
Getting rid of Section 230 will literally have the opposite effect of what they wanted. It will incentivize dumping angry, riled up users posting political garbage, which will by necessity include most present-day “conservative” users...
Upvote
24
(31
/
-7)
Here is a suggestion for Kimberly Newman and others in this lawsuit. Concentrate on content that your viewers prefer and then request your viewers do searches to find you You Tube channel. This will promote your channel and when your channel is making you more money it will also be making Google more money and it will be much harder for You Tube (Google) to sensor your channel. Having your viewers to Google your channel will also help other to find your channel also which would also increase your rating.
The whole idea is for your to promote your views and let them stand on their own merits and at the same time let those with different view do the same.
The whole idea is for your to promote your views and let them stand on their own merits and at the same time let those with different view do the same.
Upvote
-1
(4
/
-5)
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
My wife is African American and I can confirm that it certainly IS used as an equivalent of Uncle Tom by many African Americans. "Coonin'" often means selling out or making public displays of being on the side of racist authorities or white power figures who may not have the best interests of POCs at heart. Not sure it should be hate-speech for an African American to call another African American a "coon" in that context, given that the N-Word is also used in a different way within the community. It's just a much ruder way of saying "sell out".
However...that is not to defend the general craziness of these plaintiffs. The misinterpretation of "coon" is my only minor quibble, these people were clearly crossing many red lines and quite bigoted and nutty themselves.
Upvote
26
(29
/
-3)
Agreed. The farmers who wont let me put up my Pro-abortion message on the billboards on their land need to have their rights revoked. They cant be publishers and platforms! \s
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Can you explain Dandere what you hate so much about gardening, car or aircraft forums for example? Even if you aren't into any of those things, or have any hobbies at all, why don't you want other people to be able to enjoy them and keep them on topic rather then having every single forum devolve in a generic mess of anarchy? Here on Ars Technica for example we've got a wide range of forums devoted to various platforms, kinds of hardware, software, science, business, political discussion, etc. Why should that be banned?
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
Yeah, no, the DMCA's restrictions on false claims are completely toothless and actually incentivize the use of dumb automated takedown systems (of which YouTube's is the best, just to give you a sense of how low the bar is).
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Given Youtube's notoriously capricious tendencies when putting content creaters through the algorithmic grinder; it seems like they will have quite the uphill battle proving that being black gets you special grinding above and beyond the usual.
Their case gets even less hopeful since it appears that, while black, they have some bones to pick with other groups you can get moderated for crude attacks on; and they aren't shy about crude attacks.
Their case gets even less hopeful since it appears that, while black, they have some bones to pick with other groups you can get moderated for crude attacks on; and they aren't shy about crude attacks.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Knowing that your algorithms can’t be “knowingly, intentionally, and systematically” racist is probably one of the few things tech companies do actually know they can’t do and consistently avoid doing. Intentional racial discrimination against users is well outside the scope of Section 230 immunity, if you can prove it, but there’s no goddamn way a company the likes of Google/YouTube isn’t already doing at least some basic level of vetting to ensure their algorithms are at least factually neutral. Those algorithms get used internationally, and putting aside the risk of race discrimination lawsuits in the US, in a growing number of countries (including all of the European Union, per GDPR) there are explicit laws forbidding even the inclusion of race as an identified or inferred data element in the algorithm without the user’s express consent.
I feel like this part of the lawsuit is there solely to prevent the whole case from being dismissed under Section 230. But this part of the lawsuit also sounds like a desperate longshot, without any foundation. There’s nothing alleged to specifically support this claim.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Upvote
29
(31
/
-2)
That's how YouTube works for everyone, everywhere. We're all equal in the eyes of YouTube, that is, we're the ones that create content for their platform that they get paid for, there to be screwed out of our money whenever YouTube feels like it.
Don't like it? Take it to the other video platform out there, as soon as one exists.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Thank you YouTube for keeping the content of this despicable human from appearing in my feed!
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
in general these sounds like the complaints of every Youtuber i've heard, not specific to any demographic.
Upvote
12
(14
/
-2)
My journey through this article:
1) I wonder what's being alleged.
2) These claims sound almost identical to conservative claims I've heard of over the last couple of years.
3) Crikey, she doesn't seem like the nicest person.
4)
1) I wonder what's being alleged.
2) These claims sound almost identical to conservative claims I've heard of over the last couple of years.
3) Crikey, she doesn't seem like the nicest person.
4)
Upvote
28
(30
/
-2)
YouTube has often recommended InfoWars and Fox News for the last 10 years despite me viewing few things considered political, forbid conservative. Every time it tries to spoon feed me that BS, I click don't recommend channel and it still comes back. I recently unsubbbed local news, but these recs predated me subbing local news. Other people I know see the same snake oil in their feed. I also saw stupid gamer rage YouTube videos constantly recommend circa one year ago. I kept clicking don't recommend channel and still kept getting the same awful recs in my feed. That aside this suit is BS. With their toxic hypocrisy the system is working, but in a good way.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)