4 ms·

Do you believe YouTube should be forced to host porn? Why or why not?

by leot 9y ago

mbrumlow 9y ago
I think my post already covers that... Do you think the power company should be able to stop delivering power to porn providers? Should DNS servers not serve dns request for porn sites? Should ICCAN not allow you to register porn domains?
- leot 9y ago
  If your post covers it, it should be easy for you to answer the question: Should YouTube be forced to host porn and snuff videos? Why or why not? In answer to your question: the porn thing was a dicey question of tradeoffs, and in the US was adjudicated by the legal system decades ago. This is an explicit example of a debate about where to draw lines (a debate that continues), and porn has (for the most part) been evaluated to be in-bounds as concerns ICANN and power companies. For now, at least.
  - mbrumlow 9y ago
    Sorry. I suggested if it is legal, and you are setup in such a way as YouTube to host other peoples content that YouTube should not be able to remove content without forfeiting protections it receives as entity that host other peoples content. Snuff is illegal, so yeah, nobody should be hosting it, and I don't think anybody was arguing for so. As far as I know as for being "in-bounds" it's because it is legal in general. Can you name something that ICANN can block that is legal to produce and view? Now if YouTube does not want to be treated like I am suggesting very little has to change, and one or both of the following would -- to me -- give them the right to control the content. 1) YouTube was a subscription. 2) When you posted a video to YouTube they bought it out right and were now the copyright holder. The problem I am having is YouTube has found it in the juxtaposition of being both a for profit entity and a public place, if you will a communication or broadcasting facilitator. This is much like power and phone companies found them self's in. I am also open to the notion that they can curate the videos found on the site, but in doing so they take WHOLE responsibility for ALL content on the site -- not just the ones that fit their current needs. This means though, that should somebody upload some unsavory illicit content, that they are also on the hook legally and financially for the distribution and copying of said content. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Its too much power for any single entity to have. Also, maybe I am a dick, I don't really care if people are "offended", and I think the notion of "the right to not be offended" is hogwash. If you don't like the content, then don't view it. If you think some content causes people to do things prove it. This is a age old topic. First it was the "damn video games" causing people to kill people. Now its the "damn gun videos" that is causing people to kill people -- only this time video lost. Note, I am NOT pro gun, or own a gun, or likely will own a gun
    - leot 9y ago
      So to be clear, you're saying "yes YouTube should host porn".

Do you believe YouTube should be forced to host porn? Why or why not?

by leot 9y ago

Do you believe YouTube should be forced to host porn? Why or why not?

I think my post already covers that... Do you think the power company should be able to stop delivering power to porn providers? Should DNS servers not serve dns request for porn sites? Should ICCAN not allow you to register porn domains?

leot 9y ago
If your post covers it, it should be easy for you to answer the question: Should YouTube be forced to host porn and snuff videos? Why or why not? In answer to your question: the porn thing was a dicey question of tradeoffs, and in the US was adjudicated by the legal system decades ago. This is an explicit example of a debate about where to draw lines (a debate that continues), and porn has (for the most part) been evaluated to be in-bounds as concerns ICANN and power companies. For now, at least.
- mbrumlow 9y ago
  Sorry. I suggested if it is legal, and you are setup in such a way as YouTube to host other peoples content that YouTube should not be able to remove content without forfeiting protections it receives as entity that host other peoples content. Snuff is illegal, so yeah, nobody should be hosting it, and I don't think anybody was arguing for so. As far as I know as for being "in-bounds" it's because it is legal in general. Can you name something that ICANN can block that is legal to produce and view? Now if YouTube does not want to be treated like I am suggesting very little has to change, and one or both of the following would -- to me -- give them the right to control the content. 1) YouTube was a subscription. 2) When you posted a video to YouTube they bought it out right and were now the copyright holder. The problem I am having is YouTube has found it in the juxtaposition of being both a for profit entity and a public place, if you will a communication or broadcasting facilitator. This is much like power and phone companies found them self's in. I am also open to the notion that they can curate the videos found on the site, but in doing so they take WHOLE responsibility for ALL content on the site -- not just the ones that fit their current needs. This means though, that should somebody upload some unsavory illicit content, that they are also on the hook legally and financially for the distribution and copying of said content. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Its too much power for any single entity to have. Also, maybe I am a dick, I don't really care if people are "offended", and I think the notion of "the right to not be offended" is hogwash. If you don't like the content, then don't view it. If you think some content causes people to do things prove it. This is a age old topic. First it was the "damn video games" causing people to kill people. Now its the "damn gun videos" that is causing people to kill people -- only this time video lost. Note, I am NOT pro gun, or own a gun, or likely will own a gun
  - leot 9y ago
    So to be clear, you're saying "yes YouTube should host porn".