5 ms·
Even as lifelong card-carrying ACLU supporter I don’t see why they don’t just take down anything they damn well please. They’re a private company and are entit
by adwi 7y ago
Even as lifelong card-carrying ACLU supporter I don’t see why they don’t just take down anything they damn well please.
They’re a private company and are entitled to have a curatorial viewpoint—and for my particular beliefs culling white suprematists and borderline pedophilic content is a Good Thing.
You’re entitled to say whatever you want in this country, but I’m not obligated to broadcast it for you.
- skrowl 7y agoI think the problem is that they censor views they don't like that aren't breaking any laws, which makes them a PUBLISHER but then they claim they need protections only offered to OPEN PLATFORMS. They've often claimed in court to be an open / neutral platform, because that comes with legal protections against what your users post - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-... Publishers (like Forbes when people blog on there) on the other hand are responsible for their user posts. I think Facebook / Youtube is more like the Forbe here, so they should be treated legally as a publisher.
- esailija 7y agoI cannot find any mention of youtube in the link, it seems to be about facebook.
- sintaxi 7y ago> I don’t see why they don’t just take down anything they damn well please. Its because Youtube would rather be legally categorized as a service rather than as a publisher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...