4 ms·
The press you mention is legally accountable for its content. Platforms have protections. Telephone companies, for example, aren't responsible if you slander so
by julybuffalo 7y ago
The press you mention is legally accountable for its content. Platforms have protections. Telephone companies, for example, aren't responsible if you slander someone over the phone and they send the audio to the recipient.
Why shouldn't platforms be stripped of their legal protections (and some effectively destroyed) if they are exercising editorial discretion? Why shouldn't YouTube be responsible for the videos that they do allow/have approved?
If someone doesn't think that YouTube should be accountable for content, then should a newspaper be accountable? Should a person be accountable for his content?
- laumars 7y agoThe ironic thing about your post is you eventually come to make the same point I was making. It’s just you’re getting hung up on the letter of the law and really that’s become quite an arbitrary distinction these days and one I expect will evaporate entirely within the next few years. For example we’ve already seen plenty vocal about how the likes of YouTube should be legally accountable. It might be an unpopular opinion for techies, particularly those who like to move fast and disrupt, but eventually things will change. In fact the only defence platforms like YouTube had was the telephone company defence you’re making (as it happens telephone companies haven’t been immune from the demands of censorship either) but the moment platforms do start self-censoring they lose that ISP/telephone defence because they’ve proven they can moderate contributions (even if that moderation is effectively worthless in a great many cases)