“YouTube failed as a gatekeeper to protect its users from, and warn its users of, the very harm YouTube set out to prevent with its advertising protocols and proprietary algorithms"
The documents go on to make the case that it didn't stop with YouTube simply allowing videos promoting Bitconnect to be uploaded, but many of the video creators were rewarded by YouTube directly because the videos were monetized, stating:
"YouTube was negligent in failing to warn those victims of the harmful content for which YouTube compensated their creators and publishers."
In my opinion - this seems like a stretch. Bitconnect 'victims' are searching for anyone to blame but themselves - the entire operation was clearly a scam from the beginning, and every legitimate person in the cryptocurrency world was sounding the alarm.
I am the only journalist to have confronted Bitconnect reps in person at the Silicon Valley Blockchain Expo (link) - I did this at the peak of Bitconnect when everyone was making money (or at least thought they were).
Bitconnect fans decided to send me death threats instead of heed the warnings from myself and others. I saw the same things on Twitter when established people in the cryptocurrency and blockchain world tweeted warnings about Bitconnect being a ponzi scheme. Bitconnect users simply responded in anger - saying these people were 'just jealous' that they missed out on huge profits.
Investors in Bitconnect were warned time and time again, anytime Bitconnect was mentioned online there would always be people responding calling it what it was - a scam. But when it appeared that profits are rolling in, nobody wanted to hear it.
I'm all for everyone behind Bitconnect going to prison, and i'm fine with everyone who promoted it getting sued - but these are people *directly* involved. The idea YouTube is now liable for what those people uploaded, and at fault for the victims believing what those videos said, is in my opinion a pathetic blame-game.
Sure, there were videos on YouTube of people saying Bitconnect was legitimate - but what no one can explain is: why did you listen? No one saying these things had earned any credibility, there's no reason they should ever had been considered a more reliable source than a random person on the streets.
At some point the Bitconnect 'victims' need to face the truth that something sounded too good to be true, and indeed was.
Author: Ross Davis
E-Mail: Ross@GlobalCryptoPress.com Twitter:@RossFM
San Francisco News Desk
