|
|
|
|
|
|
by theWheez
3732 days ago
|
|
|
I'm an employee at VidAngel so I may be able to provide some insight (although my opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer and should not be taken as such). When VidAngel says that it does not claim to be a moral authority, it is separating itself from the competition (e.g. ClearPlay). It is not going to tell its customers that x is inappropriate or that it is appropriate to view y. All it is saying is that it is up to the customer to decide their moral standing and what they would and would not like to view. We simply tag the content, they decide what they would like to view in their home. VidAngel is, at its core, a filtering company. So if you are not filtering, VidAngel give you alternatives such as Amazon and Google Play. That does not conflict with its refusal to be a moral authority. It offers the service to filter movies and TV shows in the privacy of your own home, but what you choose to filter is not up to VidAngel. VidAngel is a filtering company and doesn't offer unfiltered movies--because that is not the market it is after. Within that filtering, VidAngel offers no opinion on which filter is 'morally correct' or not. As far as 'shadiness' goes, VidAngel definitely doesn't try to hide what it is doing. You can contact VidAngel at support@vidangel.com if you have questions. |
|
|
Section 5.2 at https://www.vidangel.com/legal/terms
This sure makes it sound like filtering is believed to be required to make the movie legal to stream.
I really struggle to believe VidAngel would build a feature to turn away customers because it is not their market focus. It just doesn't make sense as an engineering investment decision - it is easier and more profitable to allow any number of filters (with 0 being a valid number).