4 ms·
The trouble is where do they draw the line. Say I share a pamphlet about how Jesus reclaims humanity from the corruption of sin. If Google thinks all Christians
by virmundi 6y ago
The trouble is where do they draw the line. Say I share a pamphlet about how Jesus reclaims humanity from the corruption of sin. If Google thinks all Christians are superstitious bumpkins, does that give them the right to remove my public share?
- tinus_hn 6y agoThey have the right to stop hosting whatever they are hosting for any reason or no reason at all. What makes you think they can be forced to host your files?
- virmundi 6y agoThe implicit idea that they are not a publisher. Now they are. They should lose their protections.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoGiven the number of conservatives in congress, it's surprising that they won't sponsor some legislation like this. But they seem to be more interested in protecting business interests.
- joshuamorton 6y agoWhat protections do you believe platforms have that publishers do not? Article 50 doesn't make a distinction between the two, if that's what you're thinking of.
- jfoster 6y agoThe line will be drawn arbitrarily and inconsistently, which might not be as bad as it sounds. There will always be some content that just has to be banned. No moderation will ever get the rules & the line exactly right, but they can be close enough to reasonable. The consequences matter. Losing private access to a file is quite bad, but Google deciding they don't want to help you publicly share something is a bit different. (note that in this case it's unclear which of those things it was)
- a1369209993 6y ago> There will always be some content that just has to be banned. No there won't; there will be content that special interest groups want banned, and must be prevented from getting banned. Eg child molesters wanting video evidence of their crimes banned.
- theduder99 6y agotake pride in your downvotes :) your comment must have offended someone :)