[jeromic]

Google has removed the original video from youtube over a "privacy claim" and have disabled responses on this medium post.

It makes it hard to give Google the benefit of the doubt when their stance seems to be "stop talking about it", instead of addressing the content of the video.

[EricE]

Why do Google, Twitter, Facebook or any of these companies deserve safe harbor provisions?

They aren't transparent in their decision making processes, and it's beyond obvious that the "Rules" are applied unequally.

[UncleMeat]

Given that she has already gotten threatening messages, that seems like a reasonable response. The primary responsibility should be to the safety of the employee.

[khawkins]

If getting "threatening messages" from anonymous social media accounts is the standard we're going to apply to whether or not we can talk about corruption of power, say goodbye to free speech.

Imagine an oil executive saying you can't report their name or what they said in a private conversation because some environmentalist sent them a vicious tweet. This is what you're arguing for.

[wmil]

They did the same thing for the Pinterest video.

It's kind of disturbing because there's a clear two tier pattern emerging.

People with tech connections can take down videos that name them, even if the videos are legitimately news worthy.

Meanwhile CNN hunts down and doxes people who post memes without tech companies doing anything.

[captainredbeard]

Private security is a better response if they’re concerned about her safety.

Viewed through the lens of human power, which is more likely?

[anon12345690]

same excuse always used but no evidence. at least post a screenshot. they never do. never call the police. just an easy cover up to play the victim.