Vimeo Bans Project Veritas Over Google Video
Did the video contain “hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory” as Vimeo claimed? No.
On Monday, Project Veritas unveiled a new investigative video of a Google employee describing how the company wants to stop a “Trump situation” in 2020.
YouTube removed the video, but Vimeo went one step further. The company chose to ban Project Veritas from its platform for uploading a video with “hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory” content.
*This is breaking news. Stay tuned for updates…
Can someone explain this to me? How did that video contain any of those criteria?
Project Veritas did not put the words into the mouth of the Google employee.
BREAKING UPDATE: @Vimeo has BANNED our account days after @YouTube PULLED our video. They keep citing “privacy violations.” BEING EMBARRASSED BY LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATE JOURNALISM is not a “privacy violation.” Video STILL ON BITCHUTE. DOWNLOAD + SHARE: https://t.co/chDsGF0QCk pic.twitter.com/HSrcJjaZ4H
— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 26, 2019
1. @YouTube bans @Pinterest investigation
2. @Twitter suspends Veritas for Pinterest story
3. @reddit bans Project Veritas
4. @YouTube bans @Google investigation
5. @Vimeo removes Project Veritas account
DO THINK BIG TECH IS WORKING TOGETHER?
— Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) June 26, 2019
It’s not the first time Project Veritas exposed Google. The organization received a document that showed two employees calling PragerU, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson “Nazis” that use “the dog whistles.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
When do the gulags start? I need to put a reminder on my Google kalendarski.
Trump needs to set the DOJ on these guys and change some rules.
Am I the only thinking that after the election will be too late to put a stop to this? We need action NOW.
the only one
(we also need an edit button)
Edit would be nice but if that meant using a big service like Discus then no thank you. With the rolling purge I expect to be doxxed and banned soon enough.
With some of the political positions and comments I’ve made through Discus (none obscene, or otherwise objectionable to normal people, just strongly Conservative and opposed to PC, MSM, Socialist-Democrats, His Imperial Executiveness Emperor Barak the Nonpariel, etc.), I doubt you’d have any problems at all.
Simple remedy. remove their protection.
Another remedy – charge them with providing Billions of Dollars worth of unreported inkind donations to the Democrat Party. Make them pay penalties on all of it.
Or just break them up as done with AT&T (aka Ma Bell). It would at least slow them down for a few years.
“an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;…”
Don’t see “conservative” in that list. Unless political dissent is otherwise objectionable.
Filming a private conversation with someone under false pretenses and then widely publicly disseminating that footage is absolutely “harassing”. If you don’t believe this, you have no recourse to complain when your favorite Joe Plumber figure gets doxxed all to hell by antifa.
S.230 has always been interpreted extremely broadly, and rightly so as it’s the only thing allowing the Internet to function as it does. Proving a lack of “good faith”, or arguing a content platform’s definition of “objectionable” in order to strip them of their s.230 protections, is practically impossible. It’s a non-starter.
YouTube scarcely has a monopoly on video hosting, and Vimeo requires payment for hosting. That means Project Veritas has more legal recourse to go after Vimeo for breach of contract. Facebook has tried to screw Steven Crowder a couple of times, but because he pays them for the services he uses when he lawyers up they cave instantly.
Wrong on several counts.
Doxxing is personal information that was not volunteered. This was information voluntarily provided from the subject’s own mouth.
Not to mention that doxxing usually includes residence and telephone number information with written/unwritten encouragement for numbers of people to show up at the person’s home to harass, or worse.
Vimeo is entitled to consider conservative views objectionable, and to remove content on that basis, just as Legal Insurrection is entitled to consider socialist views objectionable, and to delete comments on that basis (although it chooses not to exercise this right).
Legal Insurrection is a blog, it’s a publisher and cannot take advantage of the protections afforded to Vimeo for being a ‘public square’. Vimeo wants it both ways, the control of content afforded to a publisher and the legal protections afforded a public square.
This was pointed out to Milhouse a day or two ago. He refuses to be corrected.
Being a stickler for the law, please comment why the law described several lines above your comments is not applicable. Congress gave them special privileges only if they remained impartial. They have violated those.
Speaking truth to fascism, the nation progresses ever left-ward.
two employees calling PragerU, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson “Nazis”
The communist, socialist, fascist axis of minority regimes, social justice, redistributive change, diversity, political congruence, and abortion chambers.
I was thinking of spending more time and uploading to Vimeo. Guess I won’t now. I guess BitChute is the only alternative. If folks know of others, let me know.
And now all the ‘Rats’ show themselves! Someone really needs to explain it to the Social/Media outlets.. They’re the Nazi’s!
When Reddit shut down The_Donald today, they lost over 700,000 Reddit users and over 6 MILLION views per day.
They don’t care anymore, it’s not business, it’s the agenda going into 2020.
You’re right. It is DEFINITELY not business…Tom Steyer and George Soros will keep them afloat–as long as the agenda is pushed.
The_Donald was not shut down. It was hidden from internet searches and a page put up in front of it, using the word Quarantine. It probably gave people who hit the [continue] button some Reddit Cooties.
There’s always Dropbox…
Thought DropBox was for storing or exchanging files. They don’t have the ability to play on a site, as I understand.
Isn’t it very simple? As long as you peg content as obscene or hateful or otherwise objectionable to community standards, no matter how frivolous or dishonest, there is nothing, not a single thing, that can be done under the current state of law, any more than you can sue gun manufacturers for using a gun to murder random people. (And certainly some people are trying to change both, but they have not succeeded at this time.)
It doesn’t have to be objectionable to community standards. It only has to be objectionable to the provider. All these companies are totally within their rights under section 230.
Though as Daniel Ream points out, Veritas may have a breach of contract case against Vimeo. I suspect not, because their terms of service are probably written to give them all the rights and their customers none, but it’s worth a try. Also, if Vimeo published that statement, rather than merely communicated it directly to Veritas, then perhaps Veritas could sue for defamation.
Milhouse. It’s the same thing. But by arguing that it’s in violation of community standards, when it’s really objectionable to the provider, that is a hearty defense against a breach of contract claim, and what can anyone do about it, realistically? Vimeo is allowed to have an opinion about what is objectionable and what is hateful conduct. If Vimeo honestly believes that the video is an expression of hatred, malice is removed, and it’s an easy argument that Veritas is the equivalent of a public figure.
My argument remains the same: the current state of the law makes effectively dealing with this situation all but impossible. A company has to be not only spiteful and malicious, but dramatically incompetent, to be even slightly exposed on a legal level, no matter how openly dishonest the justification.
Boycott the likes of youtube and vimeo. Vote with your pocketbooks, folks.
If you pay for netflix or the like, look in the mirror, and you’ll see a fool.
Time for a online bill of rights. Platforms can only delete your account if they have clear rules and specify EXACTLY it was in your content that broke which rule.
This nonsense of ‘its hateful’ when its a video of a liberal woman working for one of the most powerful online companies on the planet expressing her opinion as well as the opinion of HER COMPANY GOOGLE is not hateful. Its NEWS.
No doubt Google let Vimeo know they’d better get their mind right on the matter.
Or, even more depressing, perhaps they didn’t have to say anything. It was simply understood.
I’m not sure what kind of business geniuses are running these joints, but…
Search engines that don’t search…
Video sites that don’t share…
Picture sites that hide images…
And “social media” sites that silence voices, suppress ideas and stifle human interaction…
Just don’t seem to be sustainable models for success, no matter how big they are.
“Man, when you lose your laugh you lose your footing.”
― Ken Kesey, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
for fun, type in “US Unemployment Statistics” or any other hot topic item from last night’s debate into Google, and then with Duck Duck Go.
Absolutely correct……when does Google get charged with campaign donations to the Democratic Party?
If social media were serious, Twitter would ban the President’s account. Then we’d see what revolution is.
Are you surprised? With calls to break up Google this is dynamite.
This is a Big Tech conspiracy to rig the 2020 election. Reddit flagged The Donald on Reddit right before the donkeys’ debate. Twitter today started adding a flag to Trump´s tweets.