4 ms·
>Why is that sad? because the wholesale destruction and minimization of knowledge, education, and information to appease (often arbitrary) intellectual protect
by serf 6y ago
>Why is that sad?
because the wholesale destruction and minimization of knowledge, education, and information to appease (often arbitrary) intellectual protectionism laws is sad, regardless of who perpetrates it.
non-Google example : What.cd was a site centered around music piracy, but that potentially illegal market created a huge amount of original labels and music that still exists now in the legal sphere.
No one would defend the legal right for what.cd to continue operating, it was obviously illegal; but the unique, novel, and creative works that came from the existence of this illegal enterprise would be sad to destroy.
Swinging back to the Google example : YouTube systematically destroys creations that they feel (often wrongly) infringe upon IP. This is often not even the case, Google routinely makes wrong decisions erring on the side of the legal team.
This destruction of creative work is sad, in my opinion it's more sad than the un-permitted use of work.
Of course, Google as a corporation should act that way, but it's sad in certain human aspects.
- nolok 6y agoIt's not just google as a corporation, it's google as a legal entity. Have your own site in your own individual name with no corporate entity nor search for profit offering to host people's videos for free, and I guarantee you that within 24h you are dealing with things ranging from pedophilia to copyright violations and the like. And if you don't clear them out, you're the one responsible. Google is acting the way society has decided they should act through the laws it voted. Could they act another, more expensive, way in order to save a bit more of content that get caught by mistake ? Definitely, but why would they as a company when the laws says any mistake or delay is their fault. Source: like many people, I once made a free image hosting thingy. It was overrun by pedos within a week to my absolute horror and shock. Copyright infringement is obviously not the same at all, BUT the way the law act toward the host is not that different "ensure there is none and be proactive in cleaning, or else ...".
- sfgweilr4f 6y agoYour free image hosting thingy is an example of low barrier to entry both in cost and anonymity. If you had made the cost trivial but traceable I wonder what the outcome would have been. I wonder if a site like lobste.rs but for video would work better. A graph of who is posting what and a graph of how they got onto the site in the first place. If you vouch for someone who is dodgy now you are also seen as a little dodgier than you were before. This doesn't necessarily mean you lose your account because you happened to vouch for someone, but it might mean that your vouching means less in future.
- maxerickson 6y agoIt's not destroyed, it just isn't published. Or is the idea that they should be the canonical archive of all uploads?
- dev_tty01 6y agoThey aren't destroying anything. They are just not allowing the material on their site. Are you saying that anyone who creates a video hosting site must allow ANY content on their site? I don't see any practical basis for that contention.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]