Maybe they should have looked at the guidelines for the service they were using:
How does Vimeo define hateful, harassing, defamatory, and discriminatory content? The Guidelines state:
No videos that are hateful, harass others, or include defamatory or discriminatory speech. This means that Vimeo moderators will generally remove videos that:
Make derogatory or inflammatory statements about individuals or groups of people
Are intended to harm someone’s reputation
Are malicious
Include someone’s image or voice without their consent (Exception! Public figures and/or political officials are generally fair game.)
Or do you want to throw contract law out the window along with the Bill of Rights?
Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.
JK Brown
Commenting on another blog today. I'm promiscuous. I came up with this description of what Facebook and Google have becomeSeems to me it is a property rights problem. People enter into the Facebook or Google plantations and start to sharecrop advertising. Google owns the land and the user doesn't even have rights to finish the growing season. If the user displeases the lords of the manor, they can be thrown off the land and all their improvements either confiscated, burned or thrown off with them.
Sharecropping is a crappy way of life, but if it is all you got, you make the best of it. But people seem to have lost sight of the fact they have no enforceable property rights. They live by the leave and the whim of the landowners. And the landowners or the personal guard and retainers have decided they don't want certain people, who think differently, on their land.
For survival, you may have to work sharecropping on the internet. But you should not lose sight of the fact that your life is tenuous and take precautions. Perhaps we'll move into a republican period and the feudal system will be overthrown even if we have to take the heads of a few kings and nobles.
They are claiming that they haven't broken any rules. What do you say to that?
Include someone’s image or voice without their consent (Exception! Public figures and/or political officials are generally fair game.)
Or do you want to throw contract law out the window along with the Bill of Rights?
You know very well that's an excuse. If ABC news did the exact same undercover operation, they wouldn't do a d@mn thing about it.
This is just google flexing it's "I can f*** you up!" muscles on other companies.