3 ms·
> they MUST NOT be prohibited, because it would infringe on the rights of the creators. However in reality the company acts conservitively and bans content th
by monksy 6y ago
> they MUST NOT be prohibited, because it would infringe on the rights of the creators.
However in reality the company acts conservitively and bans content that violates in Thailand for the US. "it's their platform". That's the same case as in the US. (See the article earlier talking about the CCP protest comments on youtube.)
- tsimionescu 6y agoYes, that is what is happening because most states are not given enough power to impose their beliefs on entities like Google. Even more in reality than your example, YouTube is censoring content the US or China or maybe Russia doesn't like everywhere, and it is not censoring content that Thailand or Uzbekistan or wherever else doesn't like even in those countries. But if the US were to impose a no-censorship policy on YouTube (or at least a no-censorship-except-our-censorship policy), you would probably see some fragmentation to appease both the US and Chinese governments. And if a few dozen other countries did the same, with true force behind their decisions, you would either see YouTube retreating from those countries (perhaps opening the way for local alternatives), or many more YouTube front faces. Either way, there may be some advantages compared to the current system.