You're holding @apshamilton's feet to the fire, which is great. Now I'm feeling a little better about this lawsuit idea.
I'm still a little torn on the idea that Hive should be attached to this, but from the standpoint of the core complaint, it seems plausible that Hive (and any crypto project) was/is (hypothetically) restricted from participation in ad services to some extent.
To a great extent, apparently. And we don't have to be involved. I think it's just an avenue he's attaching to the whole of things, but we didn't actually exist during the time in question. However, we exist now, and the time in question has not subsided. The ad ban is still in place.
Also, I just posted the video so it's up now.
Yup, that's key.
It is, and YouTube is in at least two significant court cases defending why it fails to take down crypto scams (Section 230 will be their defence). That won't look good when, on the other side of the world, they'll try saying "we censored legit businesses to protect our users".... which as we can see in court in the US, they're still failing to do in other ways that DO NOT hurt their business model.
Having said that, if they were to drop all restrictions now, it wouldn't affect our case because they did the crime and the damage already.
So many crypto projects have a claim, Hive/Steem is just one of 100's or even 1000's of project claims. By the nature of a class action, we don't need to and won't go into specific details of every project hurt by this cartel, but we have looked for great stories that exemplify core points of our case:
For both those reasons, Hive/Steem was, is and can be a direct competitor to Facebook.
There are others, I believe, after we file, some very big projects will join the case but in terms of a Web 3.0 competitor to Facebook's business model I doubt we'll find a better example than Hive/Steem which actually existed back then and continues to exist now.