[tutts]

Eh. The explanation they offered that they were hiring a large mass of moderators and some of them made mistakes is more than plausible. When they add that many people it's really inevitable that someone would get over-eager or misread the message of a video.

[dreta]

It can hardly be called a mistake when the same doesn’t happen to people and channels that align themselves politically with Google’s internal policies and culture.

Google can do as they please, YouTube is theirs, but you can’t seriously accept statements like these at face value.

[tutts]

Of course it can. Taking this action against someone with a political stance opposite from yours may be a mistake you're more likely to make, but it's still a mistake.

Besides that, the point I was trying to make was less about whether it was a mistake, and more that it's plausible that this was something that was done by an individual against company policy rather than in accordance with it.

[nanis]

Regardless of whether the actions are against company policy, they were taken on purpose by the "moderators".

[tutts]

I don't dispute that. What I dispute is the implication that they had been instructed to do so by Google.

[CompanionCuuube]

So similar to the Wells Fargo account creation fraud.

[nanis]

You know, this group is still active, collecting revenue on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsdGlryupg5aU1849rUzeHw ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change

[RickJWagner]

Trying to trample opposing political views by force won't end well.