3 ms·
I think there should only be some tiny degree of forcing. A provider like Facebook and YouTube have immense power to influence elections, for example. This is s
by meowface 7y ago
I think there should only be some tiny degree of forcing. A provider like Facebook and YouTube have immense power to influence elections, for example. This is super exaggerated, but if, say, every pro-Republican video is removed or hidden behind an adult/extreme/offensive warning, while most pro-Democrat videos are left untouched, think about what effect that may have on current generations, and generations in 10 and 20 years from now, who grow up on YouTube content essentially. It'll probably influence your thinking.
I definitely don't want them to be classified as public utilities or even broken up. I think very minimal regulation similar to the "equal-time rule" should be used instead, applied only to certain narrow forms of content. I think Steve Huffman of reddit did it right: he's clearly no fan of Trump or his supporters, but he refused all the calls to delete Trump's subreddit. Half the site calls him a Nazi and the other half calls him a libcuck, but I think he made the right move.
I think YouTube should absolutely have a right to remove videos promoting white nationalism or advocating bigotry and such. I just think they shouldn't have absolute free reign to remove anything, due to the fact that they're now kind of more like TV in general, rather than a single TV network.