YouTube coughs up $24.5 million to make Trump 'censorship' case go away YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5 million to end the case brought by US president Donald Trump, who alleged the vid-streamer had infringed his freedom of speech. The case stems from the events of January 6th, 2020, when supporters of the president stormed the US Capitol building and attempted to disrupt certification of the …
As if I didn't already have enough reason to hate Google. At least Disney eventually did the right thing, though I suppose that was more because of how many people were canceling Disney+ subscriptions and park visits and telling them why so it wasn't any sort of moral courage it was a cost/benefit analysis.
Be nice to see a bunch of people canceling YouTube TV subscriptions over this, even though it is too late for Google to undo it like Disney undid the Kimmel thing.
so it wasn't any sort of moral courage it was a cost/benefit analysis.
The YouTube settlement is a cost/benefit analysis too. The settlement is a rounding error for them. They could spend money and fight it. And in a normal world they would likely win. But in the current environment they could win and still lose. It could be reversed by a corrupt Supreme Court. Or it would add them to the enemies list that gets the full force of the federal government looking for ways to make their life difficult. A government that feels no need to follow laws. They could lose their H1Bs. Extra scrutiny on interstate commerce. AI regulations. A concerted effort to break them up.
So you pay a settlement that doesn't even sting. Lay off a few employees and replace them with AI. Make noises like you didn't have a choice but to pay. And wait for the storm to pass.
What will you have to give up to get Google out of your life? Gmail, Maps, Android.
And really, this is nothing new. Ambulance chasers have used the tactic for years. Bite them hard enough to get you a decent payday, and let you brag about beating Goliath, but not enough to make it worth the costs to fight the lawsuit. All of them (Apple, Google, Meta) are international too, they've gone through this with various other countries. Russia, China, etc.
If I had to bet, I'd say that their reasoning is that this particular bully is on a clock. I don't believe Trump will actually stage a coup, and of the various other Trump-wannabes that may follow, none seem to have the combination of traits that make Trump so toxic. Given that, an appeasement might be a workable strategy.
In the long term, of course, it sends a horrible message. It lowers the bar. That means: the next bully might deploy the strategy more often, and future leaders might deploy the same strategy even when they are otherwise not as much of a bully as Trump, because it got normalized.
But since when do big corps care about the long term? Or governments, for that matter. Or, well, anyone. I might be getting bitter here.
"various other Trump-wannabes that may follow, none seem to have the combination of traits that make Trump so toxic."
Depending on what a post-Trump Trump is[*] or cares about, either he'll rally "the cause" around a successor (family member?) or he'll have had/got enough and leave a squabbling mess of in-fighting behind him.
Ie, will he live long enough to see out a full term, he's not looked healthy in a long time.
Whether or not I allow you to publish something on a platform I own is my decision, not an infringement of your mythical[1] rights: Congress shall make no law <...> or abridging the freedom of speech...
It's clear that the government cannot make a law prohibiting what you might want to say, but there is clearly no obligation on a third party to help you say it. And in fact, The Donald[tm] did exactly what he should have done: when a platform won't publish your bile speech, set up your own platform.
The government does not prevent you speaking, but does not require that I either listen to you, or that I publish you.
[1] There are no 'universal' rights. There is only what the government of the day says are rights.
Brings to mind stories of the rich elite dancing at the end of civilization. Of masked balls, where the guests dare not refuse the invitation yet fear the ease with which the assassin can move amongst them. And, of course, the Masque of the Red Death: "THEY SEEM TO THINK AT MIDNIGHT I'LL BE REMOVING MY MASK".
Perhaps it will become one of Those Rooms in the grand mansion, studiously ignored yet retained as A Reminder: you always know when the new incumbent is going to be a wrong'un when, to the horror of all the long-standing staff, they declare "an end to all this nonsense" and demand that Their Arrival Be Celebrated by a party.
The odd thing is that I really can't envision the great orange maggot ever dancing in a ballroom. Perhaps if underage girls were involved then he could stage another pervert contest in it with the unfortunate girls having to personally influence him to boost their chances. The whole design is tacky as hell and reminiscent of the casinos that he plundered for cash.
For collectively cooperating with the Biden Socialist regime. Four years of suppressing conservative content, four years of Covid lies, four years of gender misinformation, four years of leftist propaganda that would have made Joseph Stalin jealous, all came to an end on January 20, 2025.
The collective 1984 style censorship of Big-Tech media is a black page in history of a free nation like the USA.
With this pocket change, Big-Tech came far too easy off the hook for their assault on democracy and free speech, each of them should have been fined for one year worth of profit. It took Elon Musk to break open the leftist/globalist information monopoly by investing 40 billion to buy twitter. They left us with bad memories of a dark age in information warfare, increased numbers of myocarditis/pericarditis issues in the male population due to their propaganda for mRNA shots. Information involving alternatives like the classic Sputnik vaccine, without serious side-effects, was actively removed.
Ask the Universities who capitulated, or the lawyers, or the TV stations.
Ask Disney.
Give into him, and he'll be after more. That's ok - that's your problem. However, by giving him a win, you set a precedent and validate his claims. That's our problem.
He already talks about the 60 minutes and other settlements as a "win" against the lefty media.
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say:–
"We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:–
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:–
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
It is actually really very simple. The 1A does not apply in his case. He is bound by the regulations set out for broadcast television and by contractual deals with the networks. If a network decided it doesn't like the content you are making it can drop it. I didn't see anyone on the left bleating on about 'freeze peach' when the likes of Rosanne Barr or Tim Allen got canned. If I remember correctly some were very happy. One of them being Jimmy Kimmel.
Jimmy is more than welcome to go on youtube and livestream his 'comedy' to his hearts content. As the political left have repeatedly pointed out, the 1A does not give you a right to a platform.
Clearly AC has not done any checking here as Jimmy Kimmel's contract explicitly states that he is free to say whatever he wants in his monologue. This was revealed by a number of people after Disney pulled the plug and is probably part of why they reinstated him so quickly. The loss of subscriptions was bad but a breach of contract lawsuit would have put them in a very sticky, and expensive, position.
That contract does not override other contracts further up the chain. No-one is obligated to give him a platform. And do not forget that he did play a faked interview clip of Trump where the 'question' asked had been dubbed in.
Also from my looking it seems that the exact text of his contract has not been published, it is just 'trust me bro!'.
