5 ms·

what to learn from this? unpopular speech needs protection. google is a private company making money from popular speech. private companies don't care about fre

what to learn from this? unpopular speech needs protection. google is a private company making money from popular speech. private companies don't care about free speech.

Analemma_ 10y ago
Having commercial partnerships with YouTube is not a constitutional right; they have no obligation to keep working with anyone.
- orionblastar 10y ago
  Youtube made a business decision not to support someone that does not fit into their corporate culture. The jokes were done in poor taste, and it made bad PR for Youtube/Google.
John23832 10y ago
Unpopular speech does not need any more protection. It's already afforded the same protections as popular speech.
gdulli 10y ago
He's still on Youtube, he can continue to speak. Google only ended a partnership with him and is no longer going out of their way to promote him. Google doesn't have an obligation to tie their brand to one that's engaging in unpopular speech, as that would defeat the purpose of a promotional relationship.
spacemanmatt 10y ago
Google owes a fiduciary responsibility to its investors. Maintaining relations with a fool like that is bad for business, and could expose them to shareholder suit. There is even more than speech, not that Google wields coercive power to prevent speech in the first place.
yladiz 10y ago
So an employee who makes offensive, unpopular speech or content should be protected from his bosses firing him, especially when he represents the company? Like it or not, Pewdiepie represents Youtube in a large way and the things he says represents, in many respects, how others see Youtube. Is it an overreaction from Youtube and Maker? Maybe, there are arguments that support it. But it is their right to essentially fire him (his show was canceled, he was removed from his network, and he can't use the same advertisements as some other content creators can) if they don't like his speech (as long as the contract allows it). Just because he's allowed to say whatever he wants and justifies it as a joke doesn't mean he doesn't have consequences for those actions, and I strongly think that he chose to use Nazi and anti-Semetical symbolism for the shock value when he could have conveyed the same message with something less offensive.

what to learn from this? unpopular speech needs protection. google is a private company making money from popular speech. private companies don't care about free speech.

Analemma_ 10y ago

Having commercial partnerships with YouTube is not a constitutional right; they have no obligation to keep working with anyone.

orionblastar 10y ago
Youtube made a business decision not to support someone that does not fit into their corporate culture. The jokes were done in poor taste, and it made bad PR for Youtube/Google.

John23832 10y ago

Unpopular speech does not need any more protection. It's already afforded the same protections as popular speech.

gdulli 10y ago

He's still on Youtube, he can continue to speak. Google only ended a partnership with him and is no longer going out of their way to promote him. Google doesn't have an obligation to tie their brand to one that's engaging in unpopular speech, as that would defeat the purpose of a promotional relationship.

spacemanmatt 10y ago

Google owes a fiduciary responsibility to its investors. Maintaining relations with a fool like that is bad for business, and could expose them to shareholder suit. There is even more than speech, not that Google wields coercive power to prevent speech in the first place.

yladiz 10y ago

So an employee who makes offensive, unpopular speech or content should be protected from his bosses firing him, especially when he represents the company? Like it or not, Pewdiepie represents Youtube in a large way and the things he says represents, in many respects, how others see Youtube. Is it an overreaction from Youtube and Maker? Maybe, there are arguments that support it. But it is their right to essentially fire him (his show was canceled, he was removed from his network, and he can't use the same advertisements as some other content creators can) if they don't like his speech (as long as the contract allows it). Just because he's allowed to say whatever he wants and justifies it as a joke doesn't mean he doesn't have consequences for those actions, and I strongly think that he chose to use Nazi and anti-Semetical symbolism for the shock value when he could have conveyed the same message with something less offensive.