4 ms·
The idea that the service is a neutral 3rd party who hosts any video is a political idea, in other words it is a choice made by platforms that both influences a
by notJim 5y ago
The idea that the service is a neutral 3rd party who hosts any video is a political idea, in other words it is a choice made by platforms that both influences and is influenced by politics. Note, because people get confused on here, this doesn't mean that it's a bad idea.
Other publishing media do not have this standard. For example, the radio waves are another medium where the FCC (which regulates them) could say that only certain things are allowed, or they could say you can broadcast whatever you want. (In fact I think they regulate content, re: obscenity, but I don't want to look it up right now.)
So again, the idea of being only a neutral 3rd party who hosts videos for all-comers is a choice, which has political implications.
- akira2501 5y ago> For example, the radio waves are another medium where the FCC (which regulates them) could say that only certain things are allowed, or they could say you can broadcast whatever you want. They can only do so because there is a limited number of them and users cannot share the space, so it must be licensed to be practically useful. Also, the FCC cannot dictate to a station what it can and cannot air, the FCC can enforce _community standards_ of the community which is being served by that radio station. They're not in a position to go searching for violations and then act upon them, they merely respond to complaints from the communities themselves. > So again, the idea of being only a neutral 3rd party who hosts videos for all-comers is a choice, which has political implications. Yes, but the service clearly exists to make money.. not to make a political statement; which I agree may be incidental, but that shouldn't be the basis for interpreting their actions.