Posted on 12/02/2019 12:08:57 PM PST by conservative98
More than 300 ads from President Trumps re-election campaign were removed by YouTube and Google over the summer for violating company policy, according to a new report.
The video ads paid for by Trumps 2020 presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., ran for several days on YouTube before being taken down, an investigation by 60 Minutes found Sunday.
When quizzed on why the ads were pulled, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said some of videos were not approved to run, before deferring any further questions to Googles online transparency report, which keeps an archive of political ads.
But the report gives no specific reason why the ads were taken down or what company policy they violated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Now that's just crazy talk.
However the Twit’s that slam Trump and conservatives to remain because free speech policy and all that.
Violating Company Policy is commie speak for “NO CONSERVATIVE SPEECH ALLOWED!!” we only allow Communism here
Because orange man bad, that's why!
Google - You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Apologies to Obi Wan - he was a bit misled about Mos Eisley.
And, of course, a refund was issued to the campaign, right?
and another woman over at Twitter also goes crazy , Hmmm
Looks like collusion.
Are there any FEC laws in regards to this?
Actually that is a serious question. If I were Trump, I’d have his campaign sue the hell out of Goolag and Fakebook at least for re-imbursement and also for damages.
It is our company policy that we will run no ads for political purposes that disagree with our Democratic overlords . . .
Maybe now hell take the censorship seriously and not just have pat on the head social media summits?
It sounds like uncharted territory. On one hand, they're like print media. On the other, they're require regulated telecommunication infrastructure.
After Nov. 2020, Google and Facebook will both face Anti-tust investigations.
As a result they will be broken up into national companies, who must be unlinked one from the other.
There was no need for the sarcasm tag unfortunately.
This makes them a publisher if they choose to censor content and as such should be legally liable for such behavior. However, Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act maintains that internet companies cant be treated as a publisher of the content it allows to be posted on the internet. So even though internet platforms cant be held legally liable for content, only users of the platform, they still decide to edit and censor the speech of its users. Section 230 gives internet platforms protection from its own users as they cant be sued for what they dont publish as well.
It seems to me that there needs to be a provision that allows users the ability to sue these platforms when their free speech rights are infringed.
Removing 300 ads is just the beginning. Soon they will remove ALL references to President Trump.
Unless of course, it’s hateful lies and rhetoric. That will be allowed.
Click my screen name for how Hillary wins next November. With huge amounts of help from Google and Social Media.
No, Hillary runs Google. All her undersecretaries work there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.