In terms of showing whether or not YouTube is acting on a “reasonable belief” — as the contract requires, or in an arbitrary, capricious, and random way — as would be a breach of the contract, I’ve put together these examples as Exhibit “B” to the complaint. [UPDATE: Exhibit B has been massively changed. This is a previous version.] You can reach your own conclusions. I’ve pasted them as images because I don’t want the links to be live, as it would be legal, yet feel wrong for me to provide live links to content that I believe YouTube may find violative of their terms of service upon human review. By putting these examples here, I’m not saying they do or do not violate anything. Instead, I invite you to draw your own conclusions. The censorship bars are there because this will soon be filed with the court as an exhibit to the complaint. [UPDATE: The new version is far more censored. I really have trouble believing that a talk about the nature of invention is somehow more offensive to YouTube than the many videos they’ve left up.]
For a fuller context, you can see the page where I first explained what was happening in hopes that YouTube would have a human review this without requiring me to sue first. The video behind it all is on that page, and I encourage you to watch it and then compare it to what YouTube has kept hosting, as shown below. So far, no luck getting in touch with an actual human.
