3 ms·

> Why? That's an interesting statement, but I don't see how one follows from the other. You're right, of course, I don't think there's a direct implication bet

> Why? That's an interesting statement, but I don't see how one follows from the other. You're right, of course, I don't think there's a direct implication between the two. There's a difference of degree, not kind, to some extent. My intuition is that the value that YouTube derives from being a place where people can post videos (and, somewhat importantly, monetize them) is much higher than the value that HN derives from people posting content. EverybodyBeNice.com is an interesting thought experiment. It wouldn't be very convincing, though, as a shield, if there was no effort put into active moderation not only for "niceness" but also for copyrighted or libelous content. The idea lives in that grey area between "completely curated content" and "just a place where people can post content". I guess my feeling, roughly, is that at some point during EverybodyBeNice.com's rise to serving billions of videos, they can no longer credibly claim that they are preserving the "niceness" unless there is some sort of review process that by its nature must also police for other kinds of illegitimate content.

wvenable 8y ago
> My intuition is that the value that YouTube derives from being a place where people can post videos (and, somewhat importantly, monetize them) is much higher than the value that HN derives from people posting content. I don't see how "value" contributes to the argument. YouTube makes money showing videos to people that other people have posted. Hacker News makes no money linking to articles that other people have written and showing comments other people have written. But in neither case is there a moral or legal imperative to allow any video or post on either platform based on any concept of value. Value doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. > It wouldn't be very convincing, though, as a shield, if there was no effort put into active moderation not only for "niceness" but also for copyrighted or libelous content. If such a site did or did not moderate for niceness, copyright, and libelous content I don't think it matters. You can't assume perfect moderation and some mean comment, copyrighted content, or libel might get through. As long the site makes an effort when discovered to remove copyrighted and libelous content then they should be shielded by the law. Furthermore, I think that's morally acceptable. It's incredibly difficult to filter for niceness or copyright. > The idea lives in that grey area between "completely curated content" and "just a place where people can post content". There is no such thing as "just a place where people can post content" in the sense that you are going for. Every place is owned and controlled by someone. They have no moral obligation to allow any content. It's also perfectly reasonable for them to also be shielded from copyright and libel if they make a good faith attempt to remove it.
- andrewla 8y ago
  > There is no such thing as "just a place where people can post content" in the sense that you are going for. It's a bit contrived, but the internet itself is such a place. I think it's widely accepted that the internet itself, and to some extent DNS, is a common carrier in the sense that it shouldn't be doing discrimination based on content, just on bandwidth. I mean, I don't want to start a whole net neutrality thing here, but a router or the operator of a router does not face any consequences for routing traffic, no matter how offensive or illegal that traffic is. Web sites that are principally public repositories, where people can upload their content, seem to be a borderline case of that -- if they want to offload the risk of hosting the content, then they can do so, but it seems to me that they have to provide a service to society in return, namely, some sort of neutrality about the content posted. I think it's equally reasonable to say that they should have no shielding at all -- society has no vested interest, necessarily, in allowing such a site to exist that has absolutely no say over what is posted on it. Allowing users to contribute to a site is fine so long as the site, in the end, bears the responsibilities for societal negatives associated with posting content (primarily libel and copyright, the two unambiguous restrictions on free speech).
  - wvenable 8y ago
    > It's a bit contrived, but the internet itself is such a place. The Internet isn't a place and that's what makes it a carrier. Just like the telephone system, the Internet connects you to other services. Websites are not principally public repositories; they are privately owned services. If they allow you to post, that doesn't make it public in an ownership sense or carrier. > If they want to offload the risk of hosting the content. But they aren't. The law doesn't allow companies or individuals to get away with hosting copyright infringement. It simply makes it possible for companies that accept user uploaded content to function in any way as the alternative would make this impossible. That's all. Implying this requires a moral imperative to allow any content is a stretch at best.

wvenable 8y ago

> My intuition is that the value that YouTube derives from being a place where people can post videos (and, somewhat importantly, monetize them) is much higher than the value that HN derives from people posting content. I don't see how "value" contributes to the argument. YouTube makes money showing videos to people that other people have posted. Hacker News makes no money linking to articles that other people have written and showing comments other people have written. But in neither case is there a moral or legal imperative to allow any video or post on either platform based on any concept of value. Value doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. > It wouldn't be very convincing, though, as a shield, if there was no effort put into active moderation not only for "niceness" but also for copyrighted or libelous content. If such a site did or did not moderate for niceness, copyright, and libelous content I don't think it matters. You can't assume perfect moderation and some mean comment, copyrighted content, or libel might get through. As long the site makes an effort when discovered to remove copyrighted and libelous content then they should be shielded by the law. Furthermore, I think that's morally acceptable. It's incredibly difficult to filter for niceness or copyright. > The idea lives in that grey area between "completely curated content" and "just a place where people can post content". There is no such thing as "just a place where people can post content" in the sense that you are going for. Every place is owned and controlled by someone. They have no moral obligation to allow any content. It's also perfectly reasonable for them to also be shielded from copyright and libel if they make a good faith attempt to remove it.

andrewla 8y ago
> There is no such thing as "just a place where people can post content" in the sense that you are going for. It's a bit contrived, but the internet itself is such a place. I think it's widely accepted that the internet itself, and to some extent DNS, is a common carrier in the sense that it shouldn't be doing discrimination based on content, just on bandwidth. I mean, I don't want to start a whole net neutrality thing here, but a router or the operator of a router does not face any consequences for routing traffic, no matter how offensive or illegal that traffic is. Web sites that are principally public repositories, where people can upload their content, seem to be a borderline case of that -- if they want to offload the risk of hosting the content, then they can do so, but it seems to me that they have to provide a service to society in return, namely, some sort of neutrality about the content posted. I think it's equally reasonable to say that they should have no shielding at all -- society has no vested interest, necessarily, in allowing such a site to exist that has absolutely no say over what is posted on it. Allowing users to contribute to a site is fine so long as the site, in the end, bears the responsibilities for societal negatives associated with posting content (primarily libel and copyright, the two unambiguous restrictions on free speech).
- wvenable 8y ago
  > It's a bit contrived, but the internet itself is such a place. The Internet isn't a place and that's what makes it a carrier. Just like the telephone system, the Internet connects you to other services. Websites are not principally public repositories; they are privately owned services. If they allow you to post, that doesn't make it public in an ownership sense or carrier. > If they want to offload the risk of hosting the content. But they aren't. The law doesn't allow companies or individuals to get away with hosting copyright infringement. It simply makes it possible for companies that accept user uploaded content to function in any way as the alternative would make this impossible. That's all. Implying this requires a moral imperative to allow any content is a stretch at best.