3 ms·
> it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law. Which laws? I will acknowledge they are gaming the system somewhat by claiming to be an impartial platfor
by big_chungus 7y ago
> it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law.
Which laws? I will acknowledge they are gaming the system somewhat by claiming to be an impartial platform (thereby gaining copyright protections) while removing what they find distasteful (but not illegal, so moderation based on opinion). However, it sounds like you believe removing videos that are not illegal in and of themselves is itself illegal. We don't have a law prohibiting that, so I'm not sure to what you are referring. Protecting speech also means protecting the right not to speak.
- tremon 7y agoI'm not referring to "gaming the system", I'm referring to the refusal to hand over appeals to an independent third party, or in some cases flatly refusing appeals. The contentid, moderation and banning decisions should be subject to public scrutiny, they shouldn't be the unassailable result of a backroom process. it sounds like you believe removing videos that are not illegal in and of themselves is itself illegal. It's not even on my radar. I'm concerned with the transparency and consistency of the process, not the outcome of individual decisions.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Nasrudith 7y agoThat really isn't rule of law then. While a transparent system would be nice it has about as much to do with rule of law as people playing catch with a glove and baseball instead of a formal game does.