3 ms·
Right. But, as a public company, should their position be to leave the harassment up until the court finishes up with its process, promoting its continued sprea
by metamet 7y ago
Right. But, as a public company, should their position be to leave the harassment up until the court finishes up with its process, promoting its continued spread?
Because what do they gain from leaving this stuff up? It hurts people. If their stated goal is to be a bastion of free speech, that's one thing. But they're not doing that. They're providing a service. Passively hosting and platforming harassment definitely doesn't fit in with their initial "don't be evil" ethos.
- nyolfen 7y agookay, but you're opening the door to youtube being the arbiters of truth; once it starts going down that road, political agents take a keen interest in controlling it. it's a question of values.
- metamet 7y agoabsolutely. I don't think there's an easy answer here, but it poses an interesting question regarding a company's willingness to balance the idea of a true and open forum vs once bound by some set of ethics.