3 ms·

NBC's original article did not include the distinction that it was for "comments on" the protest articles, which honestly makes Google's decision more absurd (i

• adrianmonk 6y ago
  Yeah, I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. I think I even saw another version that came between what you linked to and the current version. Whether it's better or worse is a whole other topic. Right now the world seems to be struggling with the question of who should police online behavior and how. That includes questions about how much responsibility a site has for user-generated content.
  • remarkEon 6y ago
    >That includes questions about how much responsibility a site has for user-generated content. That is absolutely a legitimate debate to be had. I'm not quite sure how I feel about Google setting the terms of that debate, however. Usual caveats about how Google is a "private" company apply, obviously, but it does seem like a problem when a tech company with a wholly different perspective on what's "allowable" online speech and conduct uses it's market power in ads to set the rules for others. Maybe I'm being a little dense, but I've never really like the phrase "user-generated content". At least it's honest, I suppose, because it suggests that it's something that can be "monetized" (because it's "content"). I miss old paper newspapers, and "letters to the editor".