Elaad Eliyahu

If YouTube is aware of what Candace Owens is saying is defamatory but continues to do rev splits with her,

That's that puts them in a liable position, in my opinion, beyond Section 230.

Because you're not, because- No, no, no, but the issue with YouTube is that a third party pays YouTube and YouTube then gives a portion to Candace.

So it wouldn't be that I give Ian money.

It's that I give Ian the means to rob banks.

I know he's a bank robber.

I've seen the banks that he's robbed.

It's like, yeah, I'm like, I'm going to let you use my car for the work that you do, knowing full well that you're a bank robber and you're going to use the car to rob banks.

Okay.

And you know he's doing it.

Yeah, you're going to get found liable for that.

They're going to be like, you knew he was robbing banks.

Well, I did, but he wasn't doing it all the time.

And they're going to be like, okay, you're under arrest.

But again, the Brigitte McCrone is the better example because that is 100% purely defamation per se.

Calling Brigitte McCrone a man designed to...

I mean, that is egregious defamation per se.

And YouTube knows she's doing it.

And that's actually against the rules of YouTube as well.

Like, they say don't... They say defamation?