4 ms·

We're back at the platform vs. publisher debate... I think this should be a either-or thing, that every webpage chooses. Then, you're either a platform, and can

We're back at the platform vs. publisher debate... I think this should be a either-or thing, that every webpage chooses. Then, you're either a platform, and can only remove directly illegal stuff (or when told by the courts to do so), or a publisher, decide what content you publish and what you remove, and then carry the full responsibility for that content. The current situation, where pages like youtube can act as publishers, and cherry pick what they keep/promote and what they remove, and still keep all the platform protections is really bad, mostly for the users.

chrischattin 5y ago
Companies that do business with the US .gov should be req’d to apply 1st amendment rights to their users. Much like public universities who receive taxpayer funding.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Public universities can kick you out for expressing your 1st amendment right based off of whatever bs reason they want to give just to expel you. Likewise also, teachers can fail you just because they don't like you or you hold certain views. Public universities are as fair about granting your constitutional rights as the US government. At that is, only when you beat them in court.
  - slipframe 5y ago
    > Public universities can kick you out for expressing your 1st amendment right based off of whatever bs reason they want to give just to expel you. Yeah, and a company can fire you for being black if they give a bs excuse for it too. In both of these cases your rights are being violated and you can sue them for that. What's the alternative? I can't conceive of a system where it's impossible for your rights to be violated; giving legal recourse to the victim seems like the best we can do.
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
      I'm coming from a perspective that the constitution of the united states is nothing but a farce unless you're rich enough to defend your rights in court. What is the purpose of having "rights" if I have to pay to fight for them? It's not a right then if institutions can trample on them as such.
      - slipframe 5y ago
        (When the offense against you is criminal, it [is/may be] the government that foots the bill for prosecuting it. For instance, this is how it works with the Department of Labor when you report wage theft to them.) What alternative do you propose? That we give up on the concept of rights entirely? Without offering constructive suggestions, it seems like you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.
_-david-_ 5y ago
I am in general agreement with you, but I think there should be a way for internet platforms to ban certain content. YouTube shouldn't be required to host porn (or anything too raunchy) just because it is a platform. This would almost certainly lead to young kids seeing porn. I know YouTube has age restriction videos but a parent could easily be signed in to their account which allows NSFW material and the next thing you know a 5 year old would be watching porn. As long as section 230 exists platforms could remove porn, but it sounds like you would be opposed to allowing YouTube (if they are a platform) from removing porn since it is legal?
- callmejoe 5y ago
  would that not be the parent's responsibility then? this argument reeks of "but think of the children" fallacy.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    The parents would have no way of stopping it. If you want to allow child friendly content on YouTube you could not block YouTube on the computer. If YouTube put all nsfw content on nsfw.youtube.com then maybe you could make the argument but the average parent has no clue how to block a domain. I am not making the argument porn should be banned, only that certain platforms should not be required to host it especially if they have a large child audience.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      What's the difference between nsfw.youtube.com and pornhub? And youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ content, where you have to be signed in to see.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        >What's the difference between nsfw.youtube.com and pornhub? There wouldn't be a difference. I would prefer only sfw stuff on YouTube and nsfw on other sites. If YouTube was required to host nsfw content I would prefer on a separate subdomain to make it easier to block. >And youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ content, where you have to be signed in to see. Correct. This is an existing issue today, however, since the nsfw content on YouTube is a bit more appropriate than a typical porn site so I am not as concerned. Watching a breast exam or something like that is a bit different than a gang bang. I would like to see the existing nsfw content migrated off YouTube proper onto nsfw.youtube.com or something like that. It can be a challenge to actually block inappropriate content on YouTube. Allowing porn on YouTube would make it even harder. (You technically can block nsfw content on YouTube already by creating a cname records in your dns server, but the average person can't really handle that)

chrischattin 5y ago

Companies that do business with the US .gov should be req’d to apply 1st amendment rights to their users. Much like public universities who receive taxpayer funding.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Public universities can kick you out for expressing your 1st amendment right based off of whatever bs reason they want to give just to expel you. Likewise also, teachers can fail you just because they don't like you or you hold certain views. Public universities are as fair about granting your constitutional rights as the US government. At that is, only when you beat them in court.
- slipframe 5y ago
  > Public universities can kick you out for expressing your 1st amendment right based off of whatever bs reason they want to give just to expel you. Yeah, and a company can fire you for being black if they give a bs excuse for it too. In both of these cases your rights are being violated and you can sue them for that. What's the alternative? I can't conceive of a system where it's impossible for your rights to be violated; giving legal recourse to the victim seems like the best we can do.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    I'm coming from a perspective that the constitution of the united states is nothing but a farce unless you're rich enough to defend your rights in court. What is the purpose of having "rights" if I have to pay to fight for them? It's not a right then if institutions can trample on them as such.
    - slipframe 5y ago
      (When the offense against you is criminal, it [is/may be] the government that foots the bill for prosecuting it. For instance, this is how it works with the Department of Labor when you report wage theft to them.) What alternative do you propose? That we give up on the concept of rights entirely? Without offering constructive suggestions, it seems like you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

_-david-_ 5y ago

I am in general agreement with you, but I think there should be a way for internet platforms to ban certain content. YouTube shouldn't be required to host porn (or anything too raunchy) just because it is a platform. This would almost certainly lead to young kids seeing porn. I know YouTube has age restriction videos but a parent could easily be signed in to their account which allows NSFW material and the next thing you know a 5 year old would be watching porn. As long as section 230 exists platforms could remove porn, but it sounds like you would be opposed to allowing YouTube (if they are a platform) from removing porn since it is legal?

callmejoe 5y ago
would that not be the parent's responsibility then? this argument reeks of "but think of the children" fallacy.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  The parents would have no way of stopping it. If you want to allow child friendly content on YouTube you could not block YouTube on the computer. If YouTube put all nsfw content on nsfw.youtube.com then maybe you could make the argument but the average parent has no clue how to block a domain. I am not making the argument porn should be banned, only that certain platforms should not be required to host it especially if they have a large child audience.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    What's the difference between nsfw.youtube.com and pornhub? And youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ content, where you have to be signed in to see.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      >What's the difference between nsfw.youtube.com and pornhub? There wouldn't be a difference. I would prefer only sfw stuff on YouTube and nsfw on other sites. If YouTube was required to host nsfw content I would prefer on a separate subdomain to make it easier to block. >And youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ content, where you have to be signed in to see. Correct. This is an existing issue today, however, since the nsfw content on YouTube is a bit more appropriate than a typical porn site so I am not as concerned. Watching a breast exam or something like that is a bit different than a gang bang. I would like to see the existing nsfw content migrated off YouTube proper onto nsfw.youtube.com or something like that. It can be a challenge to actually block inappropriate content on YouTube. Allowing porn on YouTube would make it even harder. (You technically can block nsfw content on YouTube already by creating a cname records in your dns server, but the average person can't really handle that)