3 ms·

Maybe we should just get rid of liability for authors and publishers, then, also? It's fair to ask how big of a problem libel is. It's hardly enforced now, any

• asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  The reason to connect liabilities to publishers is that publishers have the ability to respond to those incentives. This is not like UGC websites. UGC websites can't practically respond to content liability proactively in their current economic model, since the marginal unit of content has such low value but imposes such high risk. Therefore, if we tried to connect liability to the UGC business, the semi-democratized form it currently has would have to die. Instead, you'd have a situation much more like the broadcast model where producers and content would need to be vetted beforehand. Small-time producers without much economic value would not be permitted onto UGC sites because the risk of liability would outweigh the benefits of hosting. (I don't see YouTube going in the direction of 8chan. It would be too damaging to the brand. So the idea that there should be no moderation is right out the window.) That's the reason why these provisions exist: without them, the businesses cannot exist. Now if you think it's a problem that teens and mommy bloggers and small time streamers can upload home movies to YouTube, you might applaud this result. But personally I don't think there's a problem with that segment existing on UGC sites, so I think it's a terrible idea to connect liability to UGC sites.