The partial root of the problem, I think, is that prior to Facebook, YouTube, et al. there were decision makers and responsible parties in the flow of such mate

The partial root of the problem, I think, is that prior to Facebook, YouTube, et al. there were decision makers and responsible parties in the flow of such materials. So news agencies had to decide to print it, or broadcast it, or a publisher had to distribute it. Even on the internet, until fairly recently distribution meant you had to seek out the content you wanted. These people were all responsible for their decision. Now Facebook and YouTube are operating like broadcasters. They're the biggest broadcasters in the history of the world. And there is no human in the loop, there's no decision made. It's just some algorithms designed around harnessing attention. It's all automatic. And it can be used for harm. Distributors of the past couldn't absolve themselves of responsibility because they were in the loop. Distribution was a decision they made. Facebook and Youtube want to absolve themselves of any of the responsibility those distributors used to have. What this may mean, and we haven't seriously discussed it as a society, is that there was an automatic assumption that what we now have with FB and YouTube is right and okay. Perhaps it's not, and perhaps these platforms should be regulated in a way such that there is a "distributor" that is responsible, and/or a person has to "seek" the content. Totally as an quick thought experiment of how that might work, using Youtube for an example: YouTube channels would need to have validated owners, and all autoplaying and promotion of videos on YouTube would need to stop outside of those channels. Thus each channel becomes its own "distributor" with a responsible party. And users must seek content by subscribing to or choosing to view that channel. The negative implications of this are: 1. Youtube's business model changes, it's bad for Youtube, but it's maybe not nearly so bad if it's regulation that affects everyone the same way. 2. There's this idea that these platforms can also be used for good by allowing anonymous distribution of dissent and the like (e.g. Arab spring). This would quell that somewhat, to distribute dissent it would need to be done through, say, sending a video to one of the channel distributors who makes a decision to publish it or not, like a news agency of old. This isn't inherently bad, note how most of the big leaks of recent years have required responsible journalists to accept and publish the content. 3. There would need to be some regulation around deplatforming actions. For example, a person becomes a "distributor" on YouTube, they're authorized, and YouTube knows who they are. They're responsible. But if someone sends them snuff films, are they allows to broadcast them or not? In this case things are easier, because YouTube can block individual "distributors"/channels in a country like NZ based on local laws. In the US for example I don't think there is anything that makes distribution of this video we're talking about illegal, so it would probably be an issue if this regulated platform was able to decide to kick off this channel now. But it's certainly a lot less gray in this set up than it is in the current set up.