Jonathan Yaniv / Jessica Yaniv / @trustednerd / trustednerd.com / JY Knows It / JY British Columbia - Canada's Best Argument Against Transgender Self-Identification

[gobbogobb]

YouTube has officially ruled in Yaniv's favor and refuses to let me contest it.
View attachment 646916

Meanwhile, Twitter refuses to answer my appeals for this suspension which was made without justification.
View attachment 646918

This is the other tweet they've flagged.
View attachment 646919

And this one apparently.
View attachment 646924

If a counter-notice is received by the Copyright Agent, YouTube may send a copy of the counter-notice to the original complaining party informing that person that it may replace the removed Content or cease disabling it in 10 business days. Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the Content provider, member or user, the removed Content may be replaced, or access to it restored, in 10 to 14 business days or more after receipt of the counter-notice, at YouTube's sole discretion.

Emphasis mine.

The only way to get Google out of the picture (who is never going to side with a small channel) is to piss Mr. Jonathan Yaniv of the Waxy Balls Clan off enough to sue.

Seeing as he's a piss broke Canuck, not likely

Tldr we need kiwitube or something.

 

[theshep]

This shit really infuriates me and I'm not even from a country with a '1st amendment'. I just can't understand their protection racket. I'm not of the opinion that he is being actively protected, but rather they're just trying to protect the fee-fees of people who may possibly be 'hurt' or 'insulted'. I think that's worse.

Fuck YouTube, fuck Twitter and fuck Facebook.

 

[RodgerDodger]

YouTube has officially ruled in Yaniv's favor and refuses to let me contest it.
View attachment 646916

Meanwhile, Twitter refuses to answer my appeals for this suspension which was made without justification.
View attachment 646918

This is the other tweet they've flagged.
View attachment 646919

And this one apparently.
View attachment 646924

Have your lawyer send a response on letterhead. That will generally clear any and all such bullshit

 

[gobbogobb]

Have your lawyer send a response on letterhead. That will generally clear any and all such bullshit

No. Their platform their rules. Most lawyers wouldn't even accept money to write the letter and the ones that would are basically stealing from you.

The rules are crappy but thats life sometimes.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

No. Their platform their rules. Most lawyers wouldn't even accept money to write the letter and the ones that would are basically stealing from you.

The rules are crappy but thats life sometimes.

This, unfortunately.

The best we can hope for is that eventually, enough people get pissed off that it forces a review of their 'safe harbor' protections under CDA/DMCA and they're forced to either admit they're a publisher (at which point safe harbor goes out the window) or they recommit to being a provider and stop throttling people for wrongthink.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

This, unfortunately.

The best we can hope for is that eventually, enough people get pissed off that it forces a review of their 'safe harbor' protections under CDA/DMCA and they're forced to either admit they're a publisher (at which point safe harbor goes out the window) or they recommit to being a provider and stop throttling people for wrongthink.

It would take massive lawsuits from very very rich people to force Twitter/Youtube/Facebook to make a decision like that.

 

[Chaton_Mort]

Dang Null, that's disheartening Still, it's important to keep in mind this isn't a killing blow. Googling Yaniv's name results in this thread being the 3rd hit, and the majority of the other links on page one are...less than flattering. As they should be. I'm infuriated that Yaniv doesn't care about how their actions impact the reputation of transfolks just trying to live their lives; in my social circle, the cringiest thing they do is merely watching anime in Current Year.

Free speech is one of the founding values of the internet. It's hard wired into how it functions. Don't forget Yaniv, you're here forever.

 

[basilthebear]

Ogre defending Yaniv's right to due process. Canada is fucked. I'm mad on the internet today and I am not even Canadian.

 

[MysteriousStranger]

The best we can hope for is that eventually, enough people get pissed off that it forces a review of their 'safe harbor' protections under CDA/DMCA and they're forced to either admit they're a publisher (at which point safe harbor goes out the window) or they recommit to being a provider and stop throttling people for wrongthink.

It would take massive lawsuits from very very rich people to force Twitter/Youtube/Facebook to make a decision like that.

Government could intervene. As Capsaicin Addict says, if they behave like a publisher, their claim to be a 'safe harbor' is weakened.

This is exactly the sort of thing the Orange Tyrant could get behind if it got his attention somehow. If only they would really ban his Twitter account like the mob keeps demanding!

 

[Marvin]

This, unfortunately.

The best we can hope for is that eventually, enough people get pissed off that it forces a review of their 'safe harbor' protections under CDA/DMCA and they're forced to either admit they're a publisher (at which point safe harbor goes out the window) or they recommit to being a provider and stop throttling people for wrongthink.

Government could intervene. As Capsaicin Addict says, if they behave like a publisher, their claim to be a 'safe harbor' is weakened.

This is exactly the sort of thing the Orange Tyrant could get behind if it got his attention somehow. If only they would really ban his Twitter account like the mob keeps demanding!

You don't lose section 230 safe harbor protections by deciding what to host / what not to host. You actually have a first amendment right to do that. For example, null has a right to decide to put together a website for hosting lolcow content. He has a first amendment right to decide not to let his resources be used to host non-lolcow content. That doesn't necessarily implicate him as the author either.

You lose safe harbor protections when people literally can't distinguish that you didn't create the content itself. On youtube, each video is labeled with the uploader.

And it's on a case-by-case basis. Like if null decides to reach across the aisle and forfeit safe harbor projections for one particular lolcow, like how he personally took ownership of some allegedly copyrighted content and challenged Yaniv to sue him, that doesn't squash his safe harbor protections overall.

 

[RodgerDodger]

You don't lose section 230 safe harbor protections by deciding what to host / what not to host. You actually have a first amendment right to do that. For example, null has a right to decide to put together a website for hosting lolcow content. He has a first amendment right to decide not to let his resources be used to host non-lolcow content. That doesn't necessarily implicate him as the author either.

You lose safe harbor protections when people literally can't distinguish that you didn't create the content itself. On youtube, each video is labeled with the uploader.

And it's on a case-by-case basis. Like if null decides to reach across the aisle and forfeit safe harbor projections for one particular lolcow, like how he personally took ownership of some allegedly copyrighted content and challenged Yaniv to sue him, that doesn't squash his safe harbor protections overall.

False or Factually inaccurate. Safe Harbor is granted when you act as the Pass Through Data Host. And provide no editorializing or similar curation of the content beyond your clearly defined terms of service. (ie no porn or nothing criminal is fine.) Does anybody remember a few years back at the height of Gamergate when Facebook was running their human news curator staff. Which suddenly got dissolved and replaced by an algorithm inside a spam of a day or two. Just Bam, everybody fired. It's because Zuckerbergs Lawyers informed him that the human curation of content would cost them their Safe Harbor status. It doesn't matter how it is labeled or what the viewer thinks. If Youtube is curating one section of their content then they lose Safe Harbor because they have the obligation and expectation to curate all. And therefore the RIAA can sue them instead of the individuals. Safe Harbor is really designed to protect ISP's from Data hosted on their services. It's been stretched to the breacking point by Social Media.

 

[Marvin]

False or Factually inaccurate. Safe Harbor is granted when you act as the Pass Through Data Host. And provide no editorializing or similar curation of the content beyond your clearly defined terms of service. (ie no porn or nothing criminal is fine.) Does anybody remember a few years back at the height of Gamergate when Facebook was running their human news curator staff. Which suddenly got dissolved and replaced by an algorithm inside a spam of a day or two. Just Bam, everybody fired. It's because Zuckerbergs Lawyers informed him that the human curation of content would cost them their Safe Harbor status. It doesn't matter how it is labeled or what the viewer thinks. If Youtube is curating one section of their content then they lose Safe Harbor because they have the obligation and expectation to curate all. And therefore the RIAA can sue them instead of the individuals. Safe Harbor is really designed to protect ISP's from Data hosted on their services. It's been stretched to the breacking point by Social Media.

That's not true. You are absolutely permitted to editorialize as long as it's clear who is responsible for the content. There is no obligation to be a 100% pass through host. See the EFF on this issue.

There have been court cases to that effect.

The key is that you aren't being confused for the author of the piece.

Now this isn't the same as with traditional hard-media publishers. The government is specifically giving extra rights to internet websites.

I know facebook and youtube are shitty, but you're reading into something that the courts just don't support. And again, kiwifarms relies on section 230 to survive.

Edit: And you're not obliged to stick to your TOS either.

 

[Arachnomatricide]

 

[Top Notch Turf]

I bet Ogre’s girldick is hard at the thought of touching kids in school like this school trustee and teacher. He probably can’t wait until the next round of elections to try and get access.

https://archive.li/weqh0

Also, from his recent Tweets about JONATHAN JESSICA YANIV, he’s regretting getting involved in defending that shit show.

EDIT: a word

 

[Trombonista]

Eh, I think Ogre just saw the phrase "trans woman" in Yaniv's complaint and jumped on the case without a second thought.

 

[Slap47]

View attachment 648911
View attachment 648932

Perhaps the trans identity should be downplayed so that the anti-pedo rage hits before the trans-identity defense force rage.

 

[Big Nasty]

I don't know if this has been answered earlier in the thread, but how much clout does the Tampon Terrorizer actually have?

 

[Dante Alighieri]

I don't know if this has been answered earlier in the thread, but how much clout does the Tampon Terrorizer actually have?

Seems like just the kind that comes with being a tranny, as he's only used the free legal venues to back him as well as the usual "we defend trannies" crowd back him.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Perhaps the trans identity should be downplayed so that the anti-pedo rage hits before the trans-identity defense force rage.

That'd be great, but a lot of the people who are promoting this story are actively invested in making the spin "VILE TRANNY JONATHAN YANIV IS THE PROOF THAT ALL TRANNIES ARE EVIL PEDOPHILE RAPIST MALES!"

 

[one_time_user]

That'd be great, but a lot of the people who are promoting this story are actively invested in making the spin "VILE TRANNY JONATHAN YANIV IS THE PROOF THAT ALL TRANNIES ARE EVIL PEDOPHILE RAPIST MALES!"

it's more 'so, you changed the laws and said no male would pretend to be a woman to get into vulnerable spaces so here's Jonathan. And by your rules that means he's as valid a tranny as every other tranny you want to let in and we're not going to let you 'no true scottsman' this'