5 ms·

I think we're going to see companies start pulling back from hosting user generated content in general. Policing it is a massive headache and a guarantee of get

I think we're going to see companies start pulling back from hosting user generated content in general. Policing it is a massive headache and a guarantee of getting pulled into all the current political dogfighting.

Nextgrid 8y ago
Not a bad outcome if it encourages people to self-host.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Self hosting as a service!
abraae 8y ago
"there's brass in muck" though. Someone - maybe not a FAANG but someone smaller and hungrier - will find a way to successfully and profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to.
- DC-3 8y ago
  > profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to I thought Reddit has never been profitable?
- throwaway55554 8y ago
  They better hurry before FAANG and Congress make it much more expensive to start up.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Creationer 8y ago
If those companies are based in the US, EU, or China, sure. The whole GDPR, Content Filtering thing seems like a massive opportunity for a savvy, unregulated South American, African or Asian company to take advantage of.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > The whole GDPR, Content Filtering Why lump privacy protections together with upload filters as if they're both bad. If you service doesn't abide by the GDPR, I'd try to avoid it. On the other hand, upload filters are a disaster and not at all comparable to GDPR, not in terms of what they do to the end-user, not the burden they place on service providers.
  - mises 8y ago
    Because it's not for you to pick and choose which laws you wish to follow. If a firm starts in the third world, it also likely cannot handle the regulatory burden of gdpr. For what it's worth, it would only have to be out side Europe. If a firm has no office in Europe, it would be difficult for Europe to enforce its laws. Extradition requires it be a crime in both countries.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Then you need yours ads to also come from those areas, and I am not sure the ad dollars are there, especially if they are being shown to people in western countries.
  - asdff 8y ago
    Why can't a US company buy ad space on a South American website?
    - cortesoft 8y ago
      Because that American company would be held to American laws, and if the point of the South American company was to skirt American laws, that isn't going to work.
ralusek 8y ago
Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms, the best of which have self-moderation available to taste (e.g. subreddit subscriptions). There seems to be a growing reluctance to accept that a person or a group being allowed to exist on a platform does not in any way serve as an endorsement of that person or group. I believe that the copyright legislation in Europe, for example, has very little to do with copyright, and very much to do with holding platforms accountable for the content that their users produce. The net result is the platforms necessarily invoke nuance-less strategies for sanitizing the content according to a narrow band of what is acceptable.
- Ygg2 8y ago
  > Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.
  - kermitismyhero 8y ago
    The EU is so frustratingly inconsistent on internet-freedom matters. On the one hand there's a tendency towards very strong privacy protections through the GDPR and similar legislation/regulations. And on the other there's blatant publisher-protectionist insanity like Article 13. It's a mess.
    - otvsh 8y ago
      How is that inconsistent? Both things are heavy-handed.
      - majewsky 8y ago
        By that same logic, > How is that inconsistent? Both things are a law.
        otvsh 8y ago
        Which supports my comment, because if it's a law it's heavy-handed. I was comparing it to having no laws.
ykevinator 8y ago
I think this is right, plus its not that profitable ( Reddit, snap chat etc)

Nextgrid 8y ago

Not a bad outcome if it encourages people to self-host.

lostlogin 8y ago
Self hosting as a service!

abraae 8y ago

"there's brass in muck" though. Someone - maybe not a FAANG but someone smaller and hungrier - will find a way to successfully and profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to.

DC-3 8y ago
> profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to I thought Reddit has never been profitable?
throwaway55554 8y ago
They better hurry before FAANG and Congress make it much more expensive to start up.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Creationer 8y ago

If those companies are based in the US, EU, or China, sure. The whole GDPR, Content Filtering thing seems like a massive opportunity for a savvy, unregulated South American, African or Asian company to take advantage of.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> The whole GDPR, Content Filtering Why lump privacy protections together with upload filters as if they're both bad. If you service doesn't abide by the GDPR, I'd try to avoid it. On the other hand, upload filters are a disaster and not at all comparable to GDPR, not in terms of what they do to the end-user, not the burden they place on service providers.
- mises 8y ago
  Because it's not for you to pick and choose which laws you wish to follow. If a firm starts in the third world, it also likely cannot handle the regulatory burden of gdpr. For what it's worth, it would only have to be out side Europe. If a firm has no office in Europe, it would be difficult for Europe to enforce its laws. Extradition requires it be a crime in both countries.
cortesoft 8y ago
Then you need yours ads to also come from those areas, and I am not sure the ad dollars are there, especially if they are being shown to people in western countries.
- asdff 8y ago
  Why can't a US company buy ad space on a South American website?
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Because that American company would be held to American laws, and if the point of the South American company was to skirt American laws, that isn't going to work.

ralusek 8y ago

Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms, the best of which have self-moderation available to taste (e.g. subreddit subscriptions). There seems to be a growing reluctance to accept that a person or a group being allowed to exist on a platform does not in any way serve as an endorsement of that person or group. I believe that the copyright legislation in Europe, for example, has very little to do with copyright, and very much to do with holding platforms accountable for the content that their users produce. The net result is the platforms necessarily invoke nuance-less strategies for sanitizing the content according to a narrow band of what is acceptable.

Ygg2 8y ago
> Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.
- kermitismyhero 8y ago
  The EU is so frustratingly inconsistent on internet-freedom matters. On the one hand there's a tendency towards very strong privacy protections through the GDPR and similar legislation/regulations. And on the other there's blatant publisher-protectionist insanity like Article 13. It's a mess.
  - otvsh 8y ago
    How is that inconsistent? Both things are heavy-handed.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      By that same logic, > How is that inconsistent? Both things are a law.
      - otvsh 8y ago
        Which supports my comment, because if it's a law it's heavy-handed. I was comparing it to having no laws.

ykevinator 8y ago

I think this is right, plus its not that profitable ( Reddit, snap chat etc)