This should be absolutely illegal

This previous post of mine was not a bit of whimsy but ought to be taken up as a serious proposition before it is too late: It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say. This is from Gateway Pundit and via srr: Joy Villa Given 48 Hours to Delete Her Incredible MAGA Song From YouTube. Someone needs to legislate to make this illegal. It is merely a fetish to say that a private firm can do anything it likes, when no private firm can do anything it likes. If someone puts up a platform for general use, only illegal activity can permit that platform from being withdrawn. Here is the story.

Singer Joy Villa shocked Hollywood after she burst onto the red carpet in February wearing a MAGA dress and a big beautiful smile to the Grammys. She became a star overnight with skyrocketing album sales as Trump supporters raced to purchase her music.

‘Tolerant’ and ‘loving’ liberals on the other hand, called for Joy Villa’s death–over her support for President Trump.

Villa claimed she had written consent from everyone in the video, however; YouTube claimed “we cannot accept or review agreements granting consent before the video was uploaded.”

YouTube is cracking down on conservatives, Christians and Trump supporters by demonetizing videos, deleting videos and suspending accounts altogether.

As TGP previously reported, pro-Trump personalities Diamond and Silk accused Google-owned YouTube of demonetizing 95 percent of their videos. The pair believes YouTube’s decision was driven by their support for President Trump.

YouTube isn’t the only platform targeting conservatives. Twitter and Facebook routinely censor and suspend pro-Trump accounts without any real explanation. Many conservatives receive vague emails claiming ‘terms of service’ was violated for benign posts while liberals and terrorists run wild on the platforms posting gruesome beheading videos, using profanity and calling for the assassination of president Trump without consequences.

This entry was posted in Conservative politics, Freedom of speech, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to This should be absolutely illegal

  1. Mike of Marion

    I’ve downloaded the song and kept it as an .mp4.

  2. closeapproximation

    Yes, but surely the alternative – to regulate all these platforms as if they were “public utilities” – is far worse.

    Soon enough, a market will open up for services which

    1) provably leave all your stuff alone (instead of harvesting via machine learning)
    2) take a strong stance on anti-censorship of anything legal

    The time is ripe. James Damore is probably working on it as we speak….

  3. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Governments are forcing corporates into groupthink by dangling lucrative contracts that can only be had by being in full compliance with cultural marxism’s egalitarian agenda.

  4. Irreversible

    Kates: Perhaps you should try to convince Sinc to post every comment that comes his way? Or would you like a law that requires all your posts to be posted by everyone? (But not the ones you dislike?) Very Trumpian way of thinking.

  5. Empire GTHO Phase III

    Why invoke the state’s monopoly of legal violence and extortion to deny freedom from association and exchange?

    What we have here is a market for counter leftist content that is unfulfilled. The record of the state in fixing perceived market failure is poor. Why would it be different this time?

  6. alexnoaholdmate

    Very Trumpian way of thinking

    Oh boy, oh boy, I can’t wait to hear how.

    Explain please.

    We’re waiting.

  7. Helen

    I like the song. Apart from a good tune, singer and video, it’s non-partisan. It could be use by pro-Trumpers or anti-Trumpers. The latter can already argue that America will not be great again till Trump goes, since he’s currently making America look foolish.

  8. Derp

    “Someone ought to…”

    No how. No why.
    First words of an authoritarian.
    What’s’ next, demanding people have the same concerns?
    Private platform, their rules.
    Even if they are inconsistently applied.
    Their choice if they want to destroy their brand.
    Yeah, no.

  9. RexR

    What tosh. Youtube will only be threatening removal base on copyright matters. Either that or they find her off-key singing offensive.

  10. Muddy

    Surely it would be more beneficial to our cause to find a way to (legally) damage those brands and businesses? (If I knew the ‘way’ to do so, I would state it here or get it up and running).

  11. RobK

    Steve,
    Always read the fine print to what you sign up to. Many platforms aren’t what they seem. I don’t like the censorship and I don’t like most of the agreements for various online platforms. Like some of the other comments, I don’t think making it illegal is the ideal solution. Some competition would be good.

  12. Art Vandelay

    Surely it would be more beneficial to our cause to find a way to (legally) damage those brands and businesses?

    Consumer boycott. Conservatives and libertarians are boycotting google and using DuckDuckGo’s search engine (which has the added benefit of better privacy) instead for example.

  13. Tezza

    Steve: thanks, thought provoking.

    You say “It is merely a fetish to say that a private firm can do anything it likes, when no private firm can do anything it likes.” I presume you mean ‘…when no private person can do anything they like.’? Otherwise, I’m a bit puzzled as to what you are arguing at this sentence.

    I tend to agree with closeapproximation, and have now switched to DuckDuckGo as a Safari extension, in preference to using Google as I used to.

  14. Tel

    I think it’s a great idea for Google to devalue their platform and open the market up to competitors.

  15. tgs

    You’re joking, right?

    Youtube is not the only video hosting service on the internet if you simply google “youtube competitor” you will find tonnes of competing services.

    If your argument is that because it’s the most popular it should be regulated then that doesn’t make any sense either. By that logic as soon as any firm gets > x% market share where x is some arbitrarily decided percentage than it would have to be regulated for the “public good” as well.

    Surely you can see how illiberal and frankly authoritarian this is? Makes no sense whatsoever.

  16. rickw

    Very Trumpian way of thinking.

    Your post is here, showing a tolerance of varying opinions that most major platforms miss by a considerable margin.

  17. Free Advice

    Just bake the damn cake YouTube.

    Hehehe

  18. So . . .

    Force Christian bakers to bake cakes for poofs = bad.
    Force YouTube to host stuff it doesn’t agree with = good.

    That about sum it up …?

  19. Sinclair Davidson

    Call that a song?

    THIS is a song.

    https://youtu.be/XDSZxUlGZnA

  20. Robber Baron

    Let the free market develop a solution.

    Boycot all leftist media.

    You have the power of the classroom. Insist that your students use non-lefty platforms.

  21. J.H.

    Helen
    #2482580, posted on August 29, 2017 at 5:43 pm
    I like the song. Apart from a good tune, singer and video, it’s non-partisan. It could be use by pro-Trumpers or anti-Trumpers. The latter can already argue that America will not be great again till Trump goes, since he’s currently making America look foolish.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    No. The Media and the political entrenched elites are making America look foolish…. Trump is just Trump.

  22. Rabz

    using DuckDuckGo’s search engine

    Thanks, Art. Done.

  23. Ragu

    It’s only the new dissenters that are getting punished. It’s kinda weird, old fossils like Zappa, Steve Vai and johnny Rotten still have videos up of themselves saying they are practical conservatives.

    Joy Villa is smoking hot, but she doesn’t have a thirty or fifty year following behind her.

  24. Rabz

    ‘Tolerant’ and ‘loving’ liberals on the other hand, called for Joy Villa’s death–over her support for President Trump.

    Disgusting clueless hypocritical totalitarian mongrels.

    Great look, you petulant dunderheads.

  25. Rabz

    That about sum it up …?

    Don’t you know what goolag’s motto is, MV?

    They haven’t haven’t paid it lip service in a long time.

  26. Fleeced

    All power to her, and I’m sure the publicity will see her sell many copies of the song… but it’s not very good. In fact, it’s quite bad. OK as a little publicity piece, or political marketing, but not something I’d kick back and enjoy listening to (let alone pay for).

    But yeah, it’s funny how these blockages effect conservatives… Jordan Peterson had his Google account closed last week. And he has everything on it. Calendars for next two months, ten years worth of emails, etc… it’s not good to be that dependant on a single company.

    I’m not a fan of anti-trust laws which punish successful companies – but the JP case highlights the importance of consumer protection laws (namely, that they retain ownership of the data).

    I believe he got access back after a day or two, but he was given no explanation.

  27. Don’t you know what goolag’s motto is, MV?

    I know what it is, Rabz.
    I also understand they are a bunch of two-face, lying, posturing, posing pricks.
    Nonetheless, either we have free enterprise where people decide with whom they will trade.
    Or the government is Big Brother and controls and dictates all our business relationships.
    There is no middle ground.

  28. duncanm

    very anti-libertarian to deny them their choice what to show on their platforms.

    As others have said — a market for conservative voices is there begging.

  29. I am the Walras, Equilibrate, and Price-Take

    Um, Steve, no.

    We should not make these actions illegal.

    We should set up our own platforms for carrying this content.

    Free enterprise beats the regulatory state, every time.

  30. very anti-libertarian to deny them their choice what to show on their platforms.

    Particularly so when use of those platforms is provided “free” to the user.

  31. duncanm

    alternative platforms are growing — dtube for example

    Youtube, google, facebook will dig their own graves

  32. Fisky

    The free market doesn’t exist. Arguably never has. So we should just nationalise Google and force them to run right-wing propaganda only. There is no infringement of property rights, because these are mythical constructs, according to the Left.

  33. JohnA

    memoryvault #2482804, posted on August 29, 2017, at 10:10 pm

    very anti-libertarian to deny them their choice what to show on their platforms.

    Particularly so when use of those platforms is provided “free” to the user.

    “If you are not paying for the product/service, you ARE the product.” Internet meme

  34. “If you are not paying for the product/service, you ARE the product.”

    A situation users enter freely, voluntarily and enthusiastically.

  35. It’s good to see the Cat railing against authoritarianism. Now if only the rabid Trumpkins could be cured of the prion disease.

  36. Fisky

    m0nty, you want to jail bakers who fail to bake gay marriage cakes. So much for “freedom”!

  37. Snoopy

    It’s good to see the Cat railing against authoritarianism.

    Zero self-awareness from Cde Antifa himself.

  38. very anti-libertarian to deny them their choice what to show on their platforms.

    Sure, they can do that but if you’ve invited content creators, like Rebel Media, to produce material for your platform, which they do having invested time, money, and talent, and in doing so have attracted a substantial number of subscribers, aren’t you obliged to at least provide them with reasons for their removal? Shouldn’t their be avenues for appeal given the investment they’ve made?

  39. Yohan

    Can tech companies ban people from Youtube, Facebook, Twitter e.t.c for holding the wrong political views?
    If you take property rights and freedom of association seriously, then yes they can.

    But this means business can refuse to bake gays wedding cakes, can discriminate against people on the basis of their race, or religion, or any other factor. It works both ways.

    Being a true libertarian means defending these popular positions.

  40. Yohan

    After the 2016 US election, the tech companies got together late that year and decided this was never going to happen again. They began implementing internal methods of blocking right wing accounts and view points under the guise of combating fake news.

    Facebook Germany just deleted 10,000 German accounts claiming they were fake news. All of them anti-immigrant, right wing, anti-eu e.t.c

    We have entered a world of large scale censorship on behalf of progressive politics. They already own the TV stations, but that was not enough for them.

  41. Sure, Yohan, but people have property rights in their business, and if you remove them from your platform because of their political views, maybe you should have excluded them from the get-go. Otherwise, compensate them.

  42. Yohan

    Dover I’m just playing devils advocate. If tech companies can ban users for saying badthink (this is within their rights as a private business), then X Restaurant can refuse service to blacks or muslims. You can’t have one without the other.

  43. Mark A

    Yohan
    #2482965, posted on August 30, 2017 at 4:37 am

    Dover I’m just playing devils advocate. If tech companies can ban users for saying badthink (this is within their rights as a private business), then X Restaurant can refuse service to blacks or muslims. You can’t have one without the other.
    ——————–

    There is a point, in a normal world that is. Show me one.

  44. Yohan

    If you think the property rights and freedom of association of ‘X Restaurant’ must be violated to force them to service blacks and muslims, then the same must be done to tech companies to force them to service racists and klansman.

  45. Mark A

    Yohan
    #2482970, posted on August 30, 2017 at 4:42 am

    I agree Yohan, in a normal, not in a PC world we live in, there wouldn’t be a question like this raised in the first place.

  46. Tom

    Precisely, Dover. The problem is the deception engaged in by YouTube and Facebook: they told their users their platforms were for everyone, but the truth was that, if people wanted to talk politics, their platforms were available only to the progressive minority who wanted to talk about progressive-approved subjects in progressive-approved language — not the mainstream majority who aren’t leftwing.

    Since YouTube and Facebook are virtual monopolies, governments should concern themselves with ensuring that there are zero regulatory barriers to new competition, which will emerge shortly as a result of the outrageous deceptions perpetrated by YB and FB. As it is not possible for YT and FB to change because of the authoritarian moral supremacism of their managements, both channels will be lucky to be commercially viable a decade from now. If you thought the internet had brought creative destruction to commerce, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

  47. Yohan

    There is a point, in a normal world that is. Show me one.

    Actually Mark, I have a good one that ties into a real world issue.

    Before the Boltheads arrived this used to be a Libertarian website. The sacrosanct principle of Libertarianism is respect of another’s persons property rights, whether it be their body or owned possessions. This is the basis of the non-aggression principle, where any violence against another can only be initiated in self defense.

    The direct implications of this is freedom of association; every person has the free will to associate with any other person, or not. This means that discrimination, on any grounds, is the right of everybody. There is no distinction between business and personal interaction.

    By refusing to serve you at ‘X Restaurant’ because you are ugly, short, German, Mormon e.t.c I have not aggressed upon your person or property, I have just withdrawn consent of interaction.

    If the world took these principles seriously there would be more peace, and far less conflict. But today the state seeks to outlaw discrimination, and as a result we have state enforced integration, and state enforced multiculturalism, or people who under Libertarian law would voluntarily have nothing to do with each other.

    The logical end result of state enforced anti-discrimination is business forced to have transgender bathrooms, where grown men can be in the same bathroom as young girls.

  48. srr

    Two things first –

    1. This isn’t new and isn’t only Alphabet/Google/YouTube, Facebook, Twitter et al. The algorithms for the various forms of tracking, blocking, shadow banning, throttling and other ways of censoring the flow of information, and so, manipulating a false majority world view, have been worked on and constantly tweaked from the get go.
    Sadly, no one outside The Ministry of Truth, believed the early warners until it was too late, and The Ministry Minions made sure of it, by swarming those of us who got through, with bots declaring us ‘loopy, conspiracy theorists‘, who, ‘don’t understand how the internet works‘.

    2. I was amused to see this was yet another of those YouTubers I had subscribed to, that I had somehow become unsubscribed to. Amused, but not at all surprised.

    #YouTubeJail : 4Chan Organizes Pushback
    Black Pigeon Speaks

  49. srr

    Interesting, the posts NOT getting through to this thread 🙄

    #YouTubeJail : 4Chan Organizes Pushback
    Black Pigeon Speaks

  50. srr

    Sorry, that was one of a number that DID, but here’s one that didn’t and screw the commentary and the rest –

    The Ideological Suppression of Right Wing Websites
    The Thinkery

  51. The problem is the deception engaged in by YouTube and Facebook: they told their users their platforms were for everyone . . .

    No, Tom. Yours and Dover’s argument falls over right there. They didn’t “tell their users their platforms were for everyone . . .”. They told their users their platforms were for everyone subject to THEIR terms and conditions.

    If you want to use a “free” service then you gets what you pays for. If you are going to create content with a view to making money, and you want to maintain control, then you pay to host that content on a server where you enter into a commercial contract with the service provider, and create property rights. Otherwise you exist entirely at the whim of the provider of the “free” service.

    What Facebook, YouTube and Google are doing isn’t wrong, it’s stupid, from a strictly business sense. They are not enforcing values they hold near and dear, they are responding to the whim of what they perceive to be public opinion. Even if they were reading the opinion vibes right – and I don’t think they are – public opinion is a pendulum in perpetual motion. Competition will ultimately kill them.

  52. OneWorldGovernment

    memoryvault
    #2483023, posted on August 30, 2017 at 8:05 am

    The problem is the deception engaged in by YouTube and Facebook: they told their users their platforms were for everyone . . .

    No, Tom. Yours and Dover’s argument falls over right there. They didn’t “tell their users their platforms were for everyone . . .”. They told their users their platforms were for everyone subject to THEIR terms and conditions.

    What mv said +1,000

  53. Tel

    The “community guidelines” for YouTube content are right here:

    https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/communityguidelines.html

    Nothing that says you can’t post a music video supporting Trump.

    They are dishonest hypocrites who don’t abide by their own standards, and yes I do see that as a type of fraud.

    Villa claimed she had written consent from everyone in the video, however; YouTube claimed “we cannot accept or review agreements granting consent before the video was uploaded.”

    And then they claim it’s really not about politics, when a very cursory look at who is getting banned reveals it is obviously about politics. More fraud and dishonesty.

    If you want to use a “free” service then you gets what you pays for. If you are going to create content with a view to making money, and you want to maintain control, then you pay to host that content on a server where you enter into a commercial contract with the service provider, and create property rights. Otherwise you exist entirely at the whim of the provider of the “free” service.

    No, there’s an agreement between the people posting content (i.e. providing value to the network) and people hosting content (i.e. providing the value of a network). Both sides contribute, both sides made an agreement. Youtube don’t follow their own rules in this arrangement, and no that’s not the “whim” of the service provider. It’s a contract like anything else.

  54. Rabz

    If the world took these principles seriously there would be more peace, and far less conflict. But today the state seeks to outlaw discrimination, and as a result we have state enforced integration, and state enforced multiculturalism, or people who under Libertarian law would voluntarily have nothing to do with each other.

    The logical end result of state enforced anti-discrimination is business forced to have transgender bathrooms, where grown men can be in the same bathroom as young girls.

    Fine, then I want to see Fatty Trump unleash the full coercive power of the state on these vile hypocritical collectivist douchebags.

    The latter can’t have it both ways and while we have to put up with all their preposterous bullshit nor should we allow them to.

  55. Mother Lode

    I always come back to what ever the agreement was between the parties involved.

    When people sign up to Fakebook and You-bend they are making contract with terms and conditions.

    Now, I suspect that the terms and conditions are vague, and that Goebbel, Twit etc might claim the right to bar undesirable content they are likely not too clear on what precisely that might be. On the grounds of effectively introducing new terms to the agreement by afterward introducing standards outside of reasonable interpretation of the terms they should be liable.

    Let the plaintiffs argue how they would have invested time and money if they had expected censorship from the platforms.

    Moreover, let them make the case that the conditions of the agreement are not uniformly enforced – that ISIS can show people being decapitated while Diamond and Silk cannot say Antifa is violent and nasty.

    But I really don’t like the idea of government passing laws to control private businesses. The MSM is also famous for its left wing bias – a circumstance that summoned Fox News into being. I think barrier to entry into TV is more substantial that social media platforms. Imagine if, instead, the government intervened to impose balance. Imagine how that would have been done under Bambi.

    And of Goebbel and such are not promoting more balanced alternatives, then let them have their colours nailed to the mast when they spread word of themselves. It is a slower path, but one that permits independence.

  56. Rabz

    They are dishonest hypocrites who don’t abide by their own standards, and yes I do see that as a type of fraud.

    Agreed.

  57. Rabz

    Spacechook and twatter are cesspits I wouldn’t be caught dead using. However, those smarmy collectivist cocksmokers stuffing around with youtube seriously gives me the proverbials.

    Are there any alternatives at this time?

  58. The “community guidelines” for YouTube content are right here:

    Tel, “guidelines” do not a contract make. For a legally enforceable contract to exist between two parties, there must be an exchange of what is termed “valuable consideration” between them. If someone uploads a video to YouTube, they do so freely, YouTube hosts it freely, and there is no exchange of valuable consideration between the two parties, even if either or both of the parties profit from the arrangement in some other way.

    If YouTube then chooses to cease hosting the video, there is no breach of contract, since there never was a contract. The fact that either or both parties cease to derive profit in some other way from the previous arrangement, is irrelevant.

  59. They told their users their platforms were for everyone subject to THEIR terms and conditions.

    As a matter of natural justice, if they can’t show me where I have contravened their terms and conditions, they can remove me, but they ought to compensate me for the inconvenience. Re your exchange of valuable contribution, that does arguable occur as content creators are producing video for hosting on Youtube, this attracts audiences, and, in turn, Youtube make money from selling these eyeballs to advertisers. What part of this is not prima facie a business agreement?

  60. Tel

    For a legally enforceable contract to exist between two parties, there must be an exchange of what is termed “valuable consideration” between them.

    Content has value. Youtube would not exist at all without contributors, and anyway our existing Copyright laws enshrine the principle that original works are a type of property with a market value (in some cases a very high market value, but the size of consideration is not important to the question of a contract).

  61. What part of this is not prima facie a business agreement?

    Of course it’s a “business arrangement”. It’s just not an arrangement that creates contractual obligations between the two parties. Two neighbours car pool to get to work. One supplies the car, the other pays for the petrol. Both “profit” from the “arrangement”, but no contract exists.

    One day one of them changes jobs, and now needs to go in a different direction. The “arrangement” comes to an end, and both parties suffer a “loss” as a result. But there is no breach of contract.

    Follow your own argument to its logical conclusion. YouTube piss off so many people that they are overtaken by a competitor, a new player. They go broke. Millions of people are adversely affected. Who do they sue? For what? Should the government now subsidise YouTube to keep it going?

  62. Content has value.

    Maybe so, Tel, but show me where YouTube contracts with you to help you realise a profit on your content? You can’t, because they don’t. Okay, show me where you contract with YouTube to help them realise a profit by hosting your content. You can’t, because you don’t.

    A (hopefully) mutually beneficial business arrangement exits, but not a contractual obligation.

  63. Behind Enemy Lines

    Yohan #2482974, posted on August 30, 2017 at 5:01 am

    Before the Boltheads arrived this used to be a Libertarian website.

    I no longer think we’e got a rat’s chance of arriving at Libertopia but, if we do, it’ll be because people took concrete steps to achieve it, not because clever, angel-tounged argumentarians debated their way to it.

    One such concrete step — the kind of step Kates is advocating — is to put the brakes on the present anarcho-tyranny, in which the government punishes our side with ridiculous interpretations of the law, and then wilfully ignores the same law when it comes to the left.

    There is very little point in philosophising about what the law ought to be, when we presently don’t have the rule of law.

    Until then: Google, Twitter et al – bake me a cake.

    BFYTW.

  64. Blind Freddie

    Monopolies have always been bad karma and always will be.
    I thought everyone and their dog knew this.

  65. DM OF WA

    The big internet and social networking businesses: Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, and others are all privately owned. So it is difficult for those who believe in property rights to argue that the owners of these businesses cannot do what they want with their private property, including who they allow to use those companies services and the conditions of use.

    However, the individual customers of these big companies also own a valuable asset, namely their personal information and private data which they hand over the companies in order to use their services. The internet giants make a lot of money from exploiting our personal information!

    While it would be difficult in a capitalist society to force social media companies to give up control of their platforms, it should also be possible to strengthen intellectual proprty laws, privacy laws and consumer laws to limit the ability of social media companies to exploit customer personal information and to enable individuals much greater control over what information can be collected and stored and how it can be used.

  66. Senile Old Guy

    They told their users their platforms were for everyone subject to THEIR terms and conditions. If you want to use a “free” service then you gets what you pays for. If you are going to create content with a view to making money, and you want to maintain control, then you pay to host that content on a server where you enter into a commercial contract with the service provider, and create property rights. Otherwise you exist entirely at the whim of the provider of the “free” service.

    Correct. And getting your own server these days is not difficult. Of course, it will also have terms and conditions. I use the free services but am aware they can delete anything when ever they want. Because of this, I have backups offline of anything that is important (in fact, I have backups of the backups both offline and online).

    And there are alternatives to YouTube and Google. Facebook, I don’t give a toss about.

    What Facebook, YouTube and Google are doing isn’t wrong, it’s stupid, from a strictly business sense.

    Yes but the people running them have already made their fortunes so it won’t affect them.

  67. Rococo Liberal

    MV is probably right that there is no really enforceable contract.
    I suppose the true test would be whether an uploader could get a court to grant specific performance. I doubt it, as the uploader hasn’t given consideration.
    Of course there may be statute law covering the situation.
    The thing is that no-one is going to bother seeking legal redress, because the litigation would cost more than the damage suffered by the platform’s actions.
    Personally I think we should use this as argument for reprealing all anti-discrimination legislation.

  68. Harald

    I share the concern regarding political activism by corporations who dominate their market (or may even have an effective monopoly). There is a coercive element to this behaviour by Facebook, Google and Youtube that disturbs me.

    However, I am very hesitant to forcing them, though.

    I do remember a bakery and pizza shop who did not want to deliver to a gay wedding, for instance. And I would have been dead set against forcing them to do so.

    Those cases caused left-outrage and calls for this type of “discrimination” to be illegal, whereas all these shop owners did is to do business – or not – conform their convictions. Which is perfectly reasonable to me if there is another bakery or pizza shop around the corner who will happily take on the business. And even if there isn’t: there is not real material damage to the rejected customer.

    And in those cases it was the pizza owner or bakery giving up that bit of business against an unhappy customer who suffered no material damage as a consequence.

    In the case of Youtube, on the other hand, it is a large company who is giving up a sliver of its business and in doing so may be causing a disproportionate amount of damage to the career of Villa who no doubt depends on Youtube to achieve exposure and income stream.

    I can see there a possibility for an argument along the lines of an unequal power balance in the case of dominant player Youtube’s actions against relatively unknown Joy Villa, causing an effective silencing and coercion on the part Youtube.

    Interesting idea, though. But I am not on either side of the line on this just yet.

  69. Ragu

    Both “profit” from the “arrangement”, but no contract exists

    A contract can be explicit, or implied. If one party refuses to pay for petrol, but still expect the ride then you can quite clearly argue that a contract has been broken.

  70. If one party refuses to pay for petrol, but still expect the ride then you can quite clearly argue that a contract has been broken.

    If one party refuses to pay for petrol – as part of my “business arrangement” example above – then there has been no exchange of valuable consideration, and there is most definitely NO contract, and NO enforceable obligation to continue to provide the ride. If rides had already been provided on the expectation of payment of petrol money, then there may be a recoverable debt to the value of the rides already provided, but there would be no residual obligation to continue to provide rides, regardless of whether the debt was subsequently paid or not.

    ——————————————————–
    MONOPOLIES

    People keep referring to Google, YouTube and FaceBook as “monopolies”. They are not. None of them were even first on the scene. Google was very much a Johnny-come-lately in the search engine field, and there are many alternatives available today. Daily Motion has been around at least as long as YouTube, and there are other alternatives, and MySpace – and others – preceded FaceBook by years.

  71. Blind Freddie

    Here is a little inspirational offering by Ruyard Kipling, who was not exactly inspired by snowflakes or their masters.

    https://youtu.be/RBCaRFY3iyA

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *