3 ms·

As I think about it now, it seems to me that the author is into something here. Everyone cries that this is attack of the freedom of expression, while it is act

by greyman 17y ago

As I think about it now, it seems to me that the author is into something here. Everyone cries that this is attack of the freedom of expression, while it is actually not. It is just an attack to automated content hosting like Youtube. Really, what would happen if content providers will be held liable for uploaded content? The megasites like Youtube couldn't legally exist. And the author argues that this is maybe not a bad thing, which is quite a fresh view of the issue. Let's use this analogy. Imagine someone was able to build automated mega pub, where anyone could come and buy beer from robot innkeeper. But the pub would be such huge, that it won't be humanly possible to check if everyone was legally allowed to drink alcohol. So the owner would say: We have so much customers that it is not within our means to check if everyone is of 18+ age. So let's anyone go in and drink beer, and if we are notified that someone is underage, we will promptly kick him off. But we are not liable, since there should be a freedom to drink beer. So what do you think - would such a pub be allowed to exists in a real world? So then, why Youtube is allowed to exist, when anyone can do illegal things anonymously there? (Of course that was just a reasoning exercise, I am not advocating Youtube ban here. ;-)) But overall, I tend to agree with the author, good article.

knome 17y ago
I think a better example would be an art show. Say someone starts an art show that lets anyone display their work inside. It's a huge art show with tens of thousands of persons setting up their pieces over acres of land. Is the proprietor of the space responsible for picking through the inordinate amount of material brought in, checking that all pieces are owned by the person entering and that none are copies or otherwise unworthy of showing? Is it enough that they kick out artists when they receive reports of ill doing? Youtube is not a pub selling beer. They are a virtual location that allows any artist to hang their work. They benefit by selling space for advertisements around the booths. When notified of an artist showing an illegal or otherwise unacceptable piece, they remove it. I see this as a perfectly reasonable situation. The metaphor used in interacting with websites is that of a place. I think the metaphor is a good one. Hosting a space for other people to use should not make one de facto guilty if others abuse it. One could argue for negligence if they had no reporting system or ignored it. But so far as I have read, this is not the case.

by greyman 17y ago

knome 17y ago

I think a better example would be an art show. Say someone starts an art show that lets anyone display their work inside. It's a huge art show with tens of thousands of persons setting up their pieces over acres of land. Is the proprietor of the space responsible for picking through the inordinate amount of material brought in, checking that all pieces are owned by the person entering and that none are copies or otherwise unworthy of showing? Is it enough that they kick out artists when they receive reports of ill doing? Youtube is not a pub selling beer. They are a virtual location that allows any artist to hang their work. They benefit by selling space for advertisements around the booths. When notified of an artist showing an illegal or otherwise unacceptable piece, they remove it. I see this as a perfectly reasonable situation. The metaphor used in interacting with websites is that of a place. I think the metaphor is a good one. Hosting a space for other people to use should not make one de facto guilty if others abuse it. One could argue for negligence if they had no reporting system or ignored it. But so far as I have read, this is not the case.