3 ms·
Since we passed a law that says they can have it both ways they can indeed have it both ways and moderate as they choose while also avoiding legal liability for
by michaelmrose 6y ago
Since we passed a law that says they can have it both ways they can indeed have it both ways and moderate as they choose while also avoiding legal liability for their users actions.
Which part of this is problematic?
- kortilla 6y agoThat they escaped the legal liability despite clearly having the capability and intent to moderate. The reason the exemption was put in place initially was because they had no editorial goal and could not reasonably moderate users. Now they are no different than the NYT with a crowdsourced author pool except they aren’t liable for libel.
- michaelmrose 6y agoHow can youtube personally vet years of videos that are added in a day. Hell even this sites moderation team can't read all content in a reasonable time frame.
- kortilla 6y agoYet they had done so for people who hinted at election fraud, anti-mask info, etc. They clearly have the capacity to quickly speech recognize audio and match on keywords. They could drop all videos that even mention Taiwan tomorrow.
- michaelmrose 6y agoHow do you know they aren't relying on user reports and tracking who gets reported for what? If 17 people per video report election disinfo over the majority of the content an account posts maybe they post election disinfo. It's still impractical to remove enough to avoid being financially destroyed by even a minority of bad content if they were personally responsible for their users content given a single case could incur a 6 figure cost to win an unreasonable case.