I had an account at Vimeo removed some time ago. It was bizarre to go back and forth about why. They had playboy and other nudity on site, we pointed to that being more nude than what we had published (which was sexual in ways, but no nudity) - and this was a paid / upgraded / pro account - a few hundred bucks.
Long story shortened they said their determination was based upon a site linked or mentioned in the videos / profile that had more explicit content on a subpage. So it wasn't the videos we made specifically for vimeo publishing (wasted time and money) - but part of what had been promoted was against some editorial something or another.
I pointed out content on their site that was way over the line of what they had issue with on that sub page - and they said something like 'don't do as they do, their (other accounts on vimeo that were not banned) stuff was not indicative of what was okay on vimeo'
All in all it's fine with me, they can do things however they want, it's a privately owned site not a gov portal, it was just so frustrating trying to make content that fit and going through so many things only to get banned for some unwritten rule.
So I used to recommend them over youtube, but that was a long time ago. Now I strongly suggest not to use them or depend on them for anything.
This is the biggest problem with tech censorship. I have no problem with them making up whatever rule they want. But no one knows the exact rules which makes it seem like they apply their rules unevenly, which reeks of bias.
Taken at face value these allegations (revelations?) are concerning. I buy that Google is not a public utility, and as a private company they have the right to do as they like, but the ethics detection indicators start pointing to nefarious when they use their monopoly status to actively influence politics.
Problem is we can't trust this source, he's been using dirty tactics before. Still, someone needs to publish a rebuttal with a satisfactory level of transparency that explains some of the statements in this video. And the discussion that should ensue is definitely of general interest, and should not be knee-jerkingly flagged into oblivion IMO.
> indicators start pointing to nefarious when they use their monopoly status to actively influence politics
The actions described in the video sound like things which could easily be an unlawful violation of campaign finance laws, as well.
It's a set of serious accusations that deserve a coherent response, not being aggressively muted from the internet (presumably via bogus trade secret accusations).
Did you actually watch the Google video? It really does speak for itself (as do the leaked documents). I can't speak to other Project Veritas stories, but this one is definitely not a "grift".
No, because it's a link to an ad-spam website that tries to spin a non-story into a controversy to enrich people who harass actual journalists.
edit: To provide some context, this is one of the controversial quotes (from a verge article, quoting one of the ML people at Google)
>"Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that."
This standard Google talking point about only large companies being able to police fake news turned, one day later, into the Tucker Carlson headline "Google wants to hack the 2020 election".
I oppose this content because I don't like preying on gullible people with misinformation.
He's become incredibly irrelevant to the world now though. Were he to make headlines again, I'd wager that his shady tactics would no longer be discussed in relative obscurity but be actual news.
How times changed, it used to be a journalist's job to uncover things like this - viz. the Watergate scandal, the Clinton's Whitewater controversy - but something broke somewhere down the line and this type of digging journalism was relegated to the sidelines and labelled with epithets like 'right wing grifter business'. You may not agree with the message bearer's views but in the end it is the message he bears which counts. In this case the message is clear, a number of influential people within Google is intent on using its reach to influence the political process.
> Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.
The term 'yellow journalism' is over a century old, so it isn't like it's a new practice. It's also called 'tabloid journalism', and it continues to this day.
As a case in point, Watergate involved felonies, and "resulted in 69 government officials being charged and 48 being found guilty".
The Whitewater controversy, despite three different inquiries, "found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal". (Both quotes from Wikipedia.)
As such, the Whitewater controversy is better known for the controversy - which can be influenced by yellow journalism - than any underlying criminal or even ethical/moral issues.
I think Scahill's "Dirty Wars" - critical of Obama's foreign military doctrine - and his further criticism of Obama's pressure to keep Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye imprisoned - would have been a better example of solid investigative journalism against a recent Democratic president.
I pointed out content on their site that was way over the line of what they had issue with on that sub page - and they said something like 'don't do as they do, their (other accounts on vimeo that were not banned) stuff was not indicative of what was okay on vimeo'
All in all it's fine with me, they can do things however they want, it's a privately owned site not a gov portal, it was just so frustrating trying to make content that fit and going through so many things only to get banned for some unwritten rule.
So I used to recommend them over youtube, but that was a long time ago. Now I strongly suggest not to use them or depend on them for anything.