3 ms·

Except this isn’t an accurate representation of what the alternative actually is, and it avoids acknowledging what the problems actually are. > Is YouTube real

Except this isn’t an accurate representation of what the alternative actually is, and it avoids acknowledging what the problems actually are. > Is YouTube really going to be required to host every piece of video published to it forever? This is a pretty blatant reductio ad absurdum. If YouTube want to clear out some of their content, they don’t have to exert editorial control to do so. Deleting every video that is more than 5 years old isn’t exerting editorial control. Deleting every video that isn’t earning $x/month arguably isn’t either. Deleting videos based on their content is. If they decide what videos they want to host based on their content, they’re not a common carrier. They’re a publisher that is deciding what content they want to publish. Expecting them to take responsibility for that isn’t trampling their freedom. The problem is that this situation has allowed a very small group to control most of the speech that takes place on the internet. They decide what content is published, and what content is not, and section 203 allows them to avoid all responsibility for publishing that content. The Good Samaritan clause grants them with absolute editorial control over the content they host, and the rest of 203 ensures they don’t have to accept any responsibility for their editorial decisions. It is having your cake and eating it too, and the problems it creates are clear as day.

wvenable 7y ago
> Deleting videos based on their content is. What about spam? What about nudity? What about content designed to be denial of service? What about content that just isn't related to the purpose of the site? > They’re a publisher that is deciding what content they want to publish. Expecting them to take responsibility for that isn’t trampling their freedom. I think I've already clearly expressed why this isn't viable. > The problem is that this situation has allowed a very small group to control most of the speech that takes place on the internet. Your logic is that this exception has allowed for this but there is no logical connection here. If all publishers need to vet all user submitted content that doesn't preclude the possibility of there becoming a single large video site or large content site. What it does do is make small sites, like Hacker News, practically impossible.

wvenable 7y ago

> Deleting videos based on their content is. What about spam? What about nudity? What about content designed to be denial of service? What about content that just isn't related to the purpose of the site? > They’re a publisher that is deciding what content they want to publish. Expecting them to take responsibility for that isn’t trampling their freedom. I think I've already clearly expressed why this isn't viable. > The problem is that this situation has allowed a very small group to control most of the speech that takes place on the internet. Your logic is that this exception has allowed for this but there is no logical connection here. If all publishers need to vet all user submitted content that doesn't preclude the possibility of there becoming a single large video site or large content site. What it does do is make small sites, like Hacker News, practically impossible.