3 ms·
>YouTube isn’t a public utility and they don’t have to publish things they don’t like. They are protected under safe harbor provisions. The question arises, on
by macspoofing 6y ago
>YouTube isn’t a public utility and they don’t have to publish things they don’t like.
They are protected under safe harbor provisions. The question arises, once they start taking direct editorial control over content, should they be?
- gitweb 6y agoShould a website dedicated to supporting women who have been sexually abused, be allowed to censor content telling them they deserved it?
- macspoofing 6y agoAre you trying to make the point that YouTube is a special interest site and not a platform? Or are you trying to make the point that YouTube should have its cake and eat it too by being protected as a platform, and at the same time play the role of a curator and publisher?
- nobody9999 6y ago>are you trying to make the point that YouTube should have its cake and eat it too by being protected as a platform, and at the same time play the role of a curator and publisher? I could waste everyone's time and explain why that's flat wrong. Instead, I'll refer you here[0] which will explain, in detail, why you're wrong about Section 230. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- gitweb 6y agoI'm likely banned from HN now from all the downvotes I received for the perfectly legit response, yet some people appear to not like facts so much that they just downvote to censor (which HN does).
- nobody9999 6y agohttps://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of-the https://popehat.substack.com/p/section-230-is-the-subject-of...
- jeffbee 6y agoThe entire point of the safe harbor, the explicit purpose of section 230 of the CDA, is that a site exercises editorial control and moderation and still enjoys the safe harbor.