6 ms·

They kind of brought this on themselves. At one time they said that they were a neutral platform, and were fairly neutral. Now they very actively curate conte

They kind of brought this on themselves. At one time they said that they were a neutral platform, and were fairly neutral. Now they very actively curate content, so naturally people are starting to want to make them liable for everything on their platform. Of course this will significantly reduce their profitability etc., but you reap what you sow.

matt4077 8y ago
Since someone else went to the trouble to explain to you why that argument is neither the law, nor logic[0], I’ll spare us the repetition and just assume you are arguing in bad faith. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18319358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18319358
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lgleason 8y ago
  With all due respect, I'm currently working with a bi-partisan group that is looking into this issue. While you may not agree with my interpretation, there are many who are more well versed with the intent (IE: know the people who wrote the original bills) and the law who agree with my interpretation. A concentration of power among a few tech companies is very worrying, but that along with the moralizing of these large pseudo monopolies is a major problem. IE: When your platform has 80+ percent market share, and is actively censoring people for espousing views expressed by the elected president of the United States. Now this does not explain the European situation, but their position does not surprise me. With all of the EU's flaws they do have better anti-trust provisions, and in this case it doesn't hurt that it is a foreign company...
  - vatueil 8y ago
    > censoring people for espousing views expressed by the elected president of the United States To the extent that's true, that says a lot more about how far the office of President has fallen than anything else. In a sane world, there would be bipartisan consensus that many of the views Trump expresses should rightfully be condemned: https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/donald-trump-is-crazy-and-so-is-the-gop-for-embracing-him?_amp=true https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/donald-trump-... > The degree of this normalization is stunning. The Republican nominee for president made comments Friday that one might expect from a patient in a mental institution, the kind of stuff you might read on blog with really small print and pictures of UFOs. And yet his remarks barely register as news. There are no condemnations from fellow Republicans. His supporters shrug them off as Trump being Trump.
    - lgleason 8y ago
      My understanding is that this view is shared by a majority of YouTube employees who censor the content. IE: We hate Trump, Trump is evil and his supporters are deplorables, therefore it is the right thing to do to suppress this horrible speech. If YouTube is treated like a publisher, and is liable for all content that is fine. But irregardless of your feelings about those views and people, when views that are held by a large percentage of the American population are actively being banned/suppressed you are no longer a neutral platform nor are you following the standard of just being a good Samaritan. To be very clear I would also have an issue with this is the target was people who are considered far left because at the end of the day I do not want to have an un-elected, for profit, monopolistic corporation (which was in fact given that power through safe harbor) forcing it's moralistic views on me or anybody else. If anything the tech companies have shown that they are great at technology and really bad at public policy, so lets let the democratic governments sort out the public policy side and the tech get back to being neutral platforms.
      - vatueil 8y ago
        I do not think that is an accurate description of how most YouTube employees feel. It is certainly not an accurate description of mine. You have cause-and-effect completely backwards: it is not because I "hate Trump" that I condemn hate speech and conspiratorial content, but rather it is because I oppose hate speech and conspiracy theories that I think Trump deserves to be condemned. As for the role of content platforms, others have already explained the difference between a journalistic publisher and a mere content filter better than I can, so I won't bother to repeat it here. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I do not believe most of the large minority of Americans that voted for Trump did so because he espouses hate and bigotry, but rather despite it. I think many conservatives who voted for Trump overlooked his rhetoric due to partisan fervor or because they were convinced Clinton was worse, rightly or wrongly. I do not believe the alt-right and unabashed racists are a "large percentage of the American population" or that public platforms need accept their hateful views. I do believe conservative voices deserve to be heard, whether I agree with them or not. But it would be doing principled conservatives a disservice to conflate them with Trumpists and the so-called alt-right. I understand there may be concern about where to draw the line, but I think any government regulation your "bi-partisan group" produces is more likely to do harm than good in the current political context.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    Let's be real, knowing people who wrote the bill doesn't make you knowledgable about it.
annadane 8y ago
And yet most people will say "Oh well Youtube has to do this, per the DMCA..." Not that they're wrong as such but nobody knows the truth, no one can get to the bottom of this. There's infinite opinions at play here. Personally, I think going after the internet in general for file sharing (which you can consider Youtube, videos are just files) is completely insane and I like the approach TBP took which is basically to say "fuck off, come back when you're actually serious"
- lgleason 8y ago
  I'm fine with not enforcing copyright if they are a neutral platform. When they go beyond that however all bets are off.

matt4077 8y ago

Since someone else went to the trouble to explain to you why that argument is neither the law, nor logic[0], I’ll spare us the repetition and just assume you are arguing in bad faith. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18319358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18319358

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lgleason 8y ago
With all due respect, I'm currently working with a bi-partisan group that is looking into this issue. While you may not agree with my interpretation, there are many who are more well versed with the intent (IE: know the people who wrote the original bills) and the law who agree with my interpretation. A concentration of power among a few tech companies is very worrying, but that along with the moralizing of these large pseudo monopolies is a major problem. IE: When your platform has 80+ percent market share, and is actively censoring people for espousing views expressed by the elected president of the United States. Now this does not explain the European situation, but their position does not surprise me. With all of the EU's flaws they do have better anti-trust provisions, and in this case it doesn't hurt that it is a foreign company...
- vatueil 8y ago
  > censoring people for espousing views expressed by the elected president of the United States To the extent that's true, that says a lot more about how far the office of President has fallen than anything else. In a sane world, there would be bipartisan consensus that many of the views Trump expresses should rightfully be condemned: https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/donald-trump-is-crazy-and-so-is-the-gop-for-embracing-him?_amp=true https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/donald-trump-... > The degree of this normalization is stunning. The Republican nominee for president made comments Friday that one might expect from a patient in a mental institution, the kind of stuff you might read on blog with really small print and pictures of UFOs. And yet his remarks barely register as news. There are no condemnations from fellow Republicans. His supporters shrug them off as Trump being Trump.
  - lgleason 8y ago
    My understanding is that this view is shared by a majority of YouTube employees who censor the content. IE: We hate Trump, Trump is evil and his supporters are deplorables, therefore it is the right thing to do to suppress this horrible speech. If YouTube is treated like a publisher, and is liable for all content that is fine. But irregardless of your feelings about those views and people, when views that are held by a large percentage of the American population are actively being banned/suppressed you are no longer a neutral platform nor are you following the standard of just being a good Samaritan. To be very clear I would also have an issue with this is the target was people who are considered far left because at the end of the day I do not want to have an un-elected, for profit, monopolistic corporation (which was in fact given that power through safe harbor) forcing it's moralistic views on me or anybody else. If anything the tech companies have shown that they are great at technology and really bad at public policy, so lets let the democratic governments sort out the public policy side and the tech get back to being neutral platforms.
    - vatueil 8y ago
      I do not think that is an accurate description of how most YouTube employees feel. It is certainly not an accurate description of mine. You have cause-and-effect completely backwards: it is not because I "hate Trump" that I condemn hate speech and conspiratorial content, but rather it is because I oppose hate speech and conspiracy theories that I think Trump deserves to be condemned. As for the role of content platforms, others have already explained the difference between a journalistic publisher and a mere content filter better than I can, so I won't bother to repeat it here. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I do not believe most of the large minority of Americans that voted for Trump did so because he espouses hate and bigotry, but rather despite it. I think many conservatives who voted for Trump overlooked his rhetoric due to partisan fervor or because they were convinced Clinton was worse, rightly or wrongly. I do not believe the alt-right and unabashed racists are a "large percentage of the American population" or that public platforms need accept their hateful views. I do believe conservative voices deserve to be heard, whether I agree with them or not. But it would be doing principled conservatives a disservice to conflate them with Trumpists and the so-called alt-right. I understand there may be concern about where to draw the line, but I think any government regulation your "bi-partisan group" produces is more likely to do harm than good in the current political context.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  Let's be real, knowing people who wrote the bill doesn't make you knowledgable about it.

annadane 8y ago

And yet most people will say "Oh well Youtube has to do this, per the DMCA..." Not that they're wrong as such but nobody knows the truth, no one can get to the bottom of this. There's infinite opinions at play here. Personally, I think going after the internet in general for file sharing (which you can consider Youtube, videos are just files) is completely insane and I like the approach TBP took which is basically to say "fuck off, come back when you're actually serious"

lgleason 8y ago
I'm fine with not enforcing copyright if they are a neutral platform. When they go beyond that however all bets are off.