Google Responds to Conservative Lawsuit

Google owned Youtube the subject of lawsuit

Releases statement regarding accusations by conservative Youtuber

Following ongoing political strife in the US that has heated up on social media, Google, along with Facebook and Twitter, have looked closer at ways to curb political anger and argument on their platforms.

But good intentions have a way of going awry.

It seems Google has displayed a tendency to scrutinize opinions coming from rightwing podcasts more heavily.

Since it is no secret that Silicon Valley veers to the political left, it only seems natural. But for may conservative podcasters, things have gone too far.

Conservative Prager University launches lawsuit against Youtube and Google

Conservative political commentator Prager University claims that Youtube has put restrictions on its podcasts while ignoring those that espouse a progressive perspective, thereby violating its freedom of speech. At a quick glance, it looks like the courts will have to balance 1st amendment freedom of speech with that of the Communications Decency Act.

Prager U produces videos from a conservative perspective with titles like 'How to raise kids who are smart about money?' and 'Why I left the left?.' The video that pushed Google over the edge apparently was one that showed an Islamic man discussing how Islam taught its followers to be anti-semitic. The video was considered hate speech and banned.

The lawsuit has left Google quiet, as it delayed commenting to the media. But just a few hours ago it released this statement:

"YouTube is an open platform and, to make it a great place for users, creators, and advertisers, we provide different choices and settings. Restricted Mode is an optional feature used by a small subset of users to filter out videos that may include sensitive or mature content. Giving viewers the choice to opt into a more restricted experience is not censorship. In fact, this is exactly the type of tool that Congress has encouraged online services to provide for parents and others interested in a more family-friendly experience online."

It seems to be a flimsy argument considering the vast amounts of questionable content allowed to pass for freedom of speech on Youtube.