3 ms·

In my opinion, sites like YouTube that rely on user generated content should drop any pretense of being neutral - they aren't and never have been. What they hav

In my opinion, sites like YouTube that rely on user generated content should drop any pretense of being neutral - they aren't and never have been. What they have been doing is dodging responsibility for being the publisher of racist and harmful material. I'm sure that YouTube would say that they don't play favorites but even if that were true, as we have seen there are organizations all the way up to nation states that are hell-bent on corrupting platforms like YouTube for their own ends. And they don't require much corrupting. Moderation is key. Sites like Hacker News work only because of strict moderation by humans. Similar sites without such moderation quickly become a haven for trolls and spam. Automatic systems can always be gamed - what is needed is a strong editorial hand. I don't want YouTube to end - there are thousands of hours of great content. But if it is to survive it needs to make a choice of what kind of site they want to be. Letting itself be anything its users want is turning it into a cesspit.

skrowl 7y ago
Google / Facebook are private companies, and they should absolutely be able to pick and choose what is posted on their platform if they want. However, they SHOULD NOT be able to have it both ways where they censor posts they don't like (like a publisher would do) but enjoy protections afforded to actual open / neutral platforms. Once you start censoring things that aren't breaking any laws, you're now a PUBLISHER and not an OPEN PLATFORM, so you are responsible for what's posted on your site.
- javagram 7y ago
  FWIW, this would be a major shift in the law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica... > The court upheld AOL's immunity from liability for defamation. AOL's agreement with the contractor allowing AOL to modify or remove such content did not make AOL the "information content provider" because the content was created by an independent contractor. The Court noted that Congress made a policy choice by "providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others."
  - skrowl 7y ago
    No it's not, if Facebook / Youtube / etc are found to be PUBLISHERS. AOL in the case you mentioned was being looked at as an open / neutral platform. I'm saying that clearly Facebook / Youtube no longer fit that definition due to the censorship mentioned in OP.
    - javagram 7y ago
      The law is specifically written for that case, as noted in my excerpt. AOL had a contract allowing them to censor their contractor’s work, did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service), and was still held immune from liability. The CDA basically grants publishers the ability to have their cake and eat it too, so you’d need to change the law.
      - skrowl 7y ago
        I hope your views are never found to be 'extreme' and you're deplatformed due to it
        pwinnski 7y ago
        It is one thing to be concerned about deplatforming--a concern I share--and another to argue against legal realities--as you've been doing. What one wants and what is are not always the same.
        javagram 7y ago
        My statement was not about what I think should be the case, but about what is currently the state of the law in the USA. Regarding what views I may have that are “extreme”, I’m well aware of the growing threat poised by this to myself...
      - radiator 7y ago
        ... did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service) ... What does this mean? I don't understand at all.
- busterarm 7y ago
  The problem that you're missing, is that these companies choose the aspects of being a publisher when it's convenient to them and a platform what that is more convenient. Publishers are responsible for the content that they put out. The New York Times can't publish some of the things that people put on Facebook without legal repercussions. When the government wants to stop some behavior happening on Facebook, Facebook says "we're not a publisher, we're a platform". But as a platform there are certain consumer protection laws that apply to these companies. In some regard, they are responsible to their users/customers. Except when people try to exercise their rights there, Facebook says "we're not a platform, we're a publisher. We're responsible for the content we publish and we can't publish that." They really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    Their customers are their shareholders. Users are just a farmed resource. To an extent, so are governments.
- AndrewStephens 7y ago
  Youtube has always been a PUBLISHER. They have never been an OPEN PLATFORM in any real sense. They have so far managed to shirk responsibility for PUBLISHING hateful content while being amazingly on-the-ball when dealing with copyrighted material. I am sure YouTube wouldn't put it in these terms, but from the outside it looks like every day they make the editorial decision to enforce copyrights while pushing hate speech. I am sure this makes sense financially.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    If they are a publisher, then I can sue them for users posting false information about me or putting me in harm's way.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    Except in a legal sense, which has been the only sense that matters. If enough people get upset, things could change, but notable it is primarily the lack of censorship that is upsetting people, so it appears the status quo of YouTube being an open platform with some censorship (Section 230 style) will continue.
guitarbill 7y ago
But if you editorialise too much, do you lose e.g. safe harbor status? Most edited media is liable. It's possible their hands are tied here. The copyright strike thing is out of hand, too, but in that case the blame is also on the (often scummy) copyright owners/enforcers. (That isn't to say they don't benefit from keeping advertisers happy, or that their platform/brand won't suffer the consequences of this approach)

skrowl 7y ago

Google / Facebook are private companies, and they should absolutely be able to pick and choose what is posted on their platform if they want. However, they SHOULD NOT be able to have it both ways where they censor posts they don't like (like a publisher would do) but enjoy protections afforded to actual open / neutral platforms. Once you start censoring things that aren't breaking any laws, you're now a PUBLISHER and not an OPEN PLATFORM, so you are responsible for what's posted on your site.

javagram 7y ago
FWIW, this would be a major shift in the law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica... > The court upheld AOL's immunity from liability for defamation. AOL's agreement with the contractor allowing AOL to modify or remove such content did not make AOL the "information content provider" because the content was created by an independent contractor. The Court noted that Congress made a policy choice by "providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others."
- skrowl 7y ago
  No it's not, if Facebook / Youtube / etc are found to be PUBLISHERS. AOL in the case you mentioned was being looked at as an open / neutral platform. I'm saying that clearly Facebook / Youtube no longer fit that definition due to the censorship mentioned in OP.
  - javagram 7y ago
    The law is specifically written for that case, as noted in my excerpt. AOL had a contract allowing them to censor their contractor’s work, did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service), and was still held immune from liability. The CDA basically grants publishers the ability to have their cake and eat it too, so you’d need to change the law.
    - skrowl 7y ago
      I hope your views are never found to be 'extreme' and you're deplatformed due to it
      - pwinnski 7y ago
        It is one thing to be concerned about deplatforming--a concern I share--and another to argue against legal realities--as you've been doing. What one wants and what is are not always the same.
      - javagram 7y ago
        My statement was not about what I think should be the case, but about what is currently the state of the law in the USA. Regarding what views I may have that are “extreme”, I’m well aware of the growing threat poised by this to myself...
    - radiator 7y ago
      ... did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service) ... What does this mean? I don't understand at all.
busterarm 7y ago
The problem that you're missing, is that these companies choose the aspects of being a publisher when it's convenient to them and a platform what that is more convenient. Publishers are responsible for the content that they put out. The New York Times can't publish some of the things that people put on Facebook without legal repercussions. When the government wants to stop some behavior happening on Facebook, Facebook says "we're not a publisher, we're a platform". But as a platform there are certain consumer protection laws that apply to these companies. In some regard, they are responsible to their users/customers. Except when people try to exercise their rights there, Facebook says "we're not a platform, we're a publisher. We're responsible for the content we publish and we can't publish that." They really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Their customers are their shareholders. Users are just a farmed resource. To an extent, so are governments.
AndrewStephens 7y ago
Youtube has always been a PUBLISHER. They have never been an OPEN PLATFORM in any real sense. They have so far managed to shirk responsibility for PUBLISHING hateful content while being amazingly on-the-ball when dealing with copyrighted material. I am sure YouTube wouldn't put it in these terms, but from the outside it looks like every day they make the editorial decision to enforce copyrights while pushing hate speech. I am sure this makes sense financially.
- busterarm 7y ago
  If they are a publisher, then I can sue them for users posting false information about me or putting me in harm's way.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Except in a legal sense, which has been the only sense that matters. If enough people get upset, things could change, but notable it is primarily the lack of censorship that is upsetting people, so it appears the status quo of YouTube being an open platform with some censorship (Section 230 style) will continue.

guitarbill 7y ago

But if you editorialise too much, do you lose e.g. safe harbor status? Most edited media is liable. It's possible their hands are tied here. The copyright strike thing is out of hand, too, but in that case the blame is also on the (often scummy) copyright owners/enforcers. (That isn't to say they don't benefit from keeping advertisers happy, or that their platform/brand won't suffer the consequences of this approach)