3 ms·

> But they are breaking a norm Media companies selectively choosing what to publish has been the norm since forever. My local paper won't publish libellous co

> But they are breaking a norm Media companies selectively choosing what to publish has been the norm since forever. My local paper won't publish libellous comments I may write against a particular person whom I hold grudge against. And my local TV station wouldn't show a pornographic commercial that I thought would be hilarious to see. Private media companies ultimately answer to their advertisers and most of them simply don't want to be associated with inflammatory or socially unacceptable content.

Helloworldboy 6y ago
Are you saying that these platforms are publishers? Then they should be held to the same standard and have the same responsibility for content that a publisher would have. They should be held liable for willingly publishing any and all content that breaks copyright law, or contains illegal content. Why are they being treated like platforms for user content when it’s legally convenient, but acting like publishers of content when they want to restrict certain forms of speech the disagree with?
chasebank 6y ago
It would be more in line with your local library refusing to catalog your book. Youtube is a content host, not a publisher.
- threeseed 6y ago
  TV stations almost entirely host content. So my point still stands that the norm is for media companies to be able to curate their content as they see fit.
- TomMarius 6y ago
  Public libraries are required by law to catalog books. Very different. Private libraries can and will often deny to catalog your random book.
- antonyh 6y ago
  YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available. Even the terminology is consistent with publisher - channel, subscriber, and so on. If the content is explicitly uploaded to YT, then how is it not a publisher?
  - coding_lobster 6y ago
    > YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available. The monetization aspect seems to be the only differentiation between what would consist a virtual library and a publisher. And we know how difficult it is to get monetized on YouTube and make it a viable source of income.
afiori 6y ago
> My local paper won't publish libelous comments would your paper do that it would become a likely target of defamation. Youtube claims to be a platform and is exempt from that risk.

Helloworldboy 6y ago

Are you saying that these platforms are publishers? Then they should be held to the same standard and have the same responsibility for content that a publisher would have. They should be held liable for willingly publishing any and all content that breaks copyright law, or contains illegal content. Why are they being treated like platforms for user content when it’s legally convenient, but acting like publishers of content when they want to restrict certain forms of speech the disagree with?

chasebank 6y ago

It would be more in line with your local library refusing to catalog your book. Youtube is a content host, not a publisher.

threeseed 6y ago
TV stations almost entirely host content. So my point still stands that the norm is for media companies to be able to curate their content as they see fit.
TomMarius 6y ago
Public libraries are required by law to catalog books. Very different. Private libraries can and will often deny to catalog your random book.
antonyh 6y ago
YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available. Even the terminology is consistent with publisher - channel, subscriber, and so on. If the content is explicitly uploaded to YT, then how is it not a publisher?
- coding_lobster 6y ago
  > YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available. The monetization aspect seems to be the only differentiation between what would consist a virtual library and a publisher. And we know how difficult it is to get monetized on YouTube and make it a viable source of income.

afiori 6y ago

> My local paper won't publish libelous comments would your paper do that it would become a likely target of defamation. Youtube claims to be a platform and is exempt from that risk.