4 ms·
> the ultimate question is whether YouTube (and other social media platforms) should be permitted both the power to control on their platform as well as the fre
by root_axis 6y ago
> the ultimate question is whether YouTube (and other social media platforms) should be permitted both the power to control on their platform as well as the freedom from liability of a common carrier
I disagree that this is the ultimate question or that this is in any way a problem that merits a changing of the laws (as current law explicitly permits this). Websites aren't common carriers, and I don't see a compelling reason to force websites to host content that they disagree with for any reason. I don't see any connection between the idea between popularity and the loss of editorial control of your own website.
> They exist in a limbo where they have their cake and eat it too- which I think is ultimately untenable.
Moderation is part of the product. I would argue that the idea that we can effectively constrict companies into a specific type of moderation behavior is what's untenable because it strikes at the heart of the creative freedom to build a website and online community with respect to your own ideals.
- AbrahamParangi 6y agoTo be clear, I think either position is fine. If you want control over what people say that's okay - but maybe then you should be accountable for what they say like a publisher. If you don't want to be accountable for what people say, that's fine - but maybe then like a traditional common carrier you shouldn't get to control what people say. The asymmetry of "I control everything you can say but am accountable for none of it" is wrong, in my eyes.