538 views
6:25 N
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
9 Comments
overdudesays...Valentimes Day? REALLY?? Ever READ a Valentine's Day card???
newtboyIt’s the time when we honor St Valen.
Valentimes Day? REALLY?? Ever READ a Valentine's Day card???
BSRNo. I only look for bewbs.
Ever READ a Valentine's Day card???
bobknight33You Tube does not want to expose these predators.
They want to keep it going.
newtboyThe world you live in must be scary, where everything that happens is some evil conspiracy where people and companies are willing to hurt themselves in order to do evil. You actually just accused YouTube of wanting child molesters to keep molesting!?!
🤦♂️
Just maybe, this guy has accused some innocent people of child molesting without verifiable proof, ruining their lives for likes on his channel.
If one of the people he accused without a conviction to back him up sued YouTube, or even threatened to, it would be the only smart move to remove him from the platform. That kind of accusation is worth tens of millions if unproven.
YouTube doesn’t want to be liable for someone else’s life ruining accusations.
You Tube does not want to expose these predators.
They want to keep it going.
BSRSounds like you contradict yourself in two sentences.
If "You Tube does not want to expose these predators." doesn't that mean they want to put a stop to it?
What am I missing here?
You Tube does not want to expose these predators.
They want to keep it going.
moonsammyHis channel is back up.
greatgooglymooglysays...The whole point of the Section 230 debate is that Youtube has no liability, just like Videosift is not liable for any of our comments. Youtube would have been sued out of existence long ago if that wasn't the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
The world you live in must be scary, where everything that happens is some evil conspiracy where people and companies are willing to hurt themselves in order to do evil. You actually just accused YouTube of wanting child molesters to keep molesting!?!
🤦♂️
Just maybe, this guy has accused some innocent people of child molesting without verifiable proof, ruining their lives for likes on his channel.
If one of the people he accused without a conviction to back him up sued YouTube, or even threatened to, it would be the only smart move to remove him from the platform. That kind of accusation is worth tens of millions if unproven.
YouTube doesn’t want to be liable for someone else’s life ruining accusations.
newtboyYou mean the section Republicans have been trying to repeal retroactively so Trump could sue them and his administration could fine or shut them down? I don’t think they feel so safe behind that shield these days.
But Ok, then maybe they were just being responsible, not allowing themselves to be used as a platform for tarnishing private people’s reputations in irreparable ways without overwhelming proof they’re guilty even though, legally, they could?
Whatever their reason, guaranteed it isn’t because they want child molesters to keep molesting. That’s moronic.
The whole point of the Section 230 debate is that Youtube has no liability, just like Videosift is not liable for any of our comments. Youtube would have been sued out of existence long ago if that wasn't the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.