3 ms·

AFHV had a robust editorial process. They only showed the clips that Bob Saget or his editors picked out. You can upload a video right now to youtube and it i

AFHV had a robust editorial process. They only showed the clips that Bob Saget or his editors picked out. You can upload a video right now to youtube and it is _immediately_ available to anyone who can access the site. It's also really hard to compare the two because one is a scheduled broadcast TV and the other is on demand. The license isn't a function of random people submitting content it's a function of whether you're broadcasting to the airwaves on frequencies controlled by the FCC, which all the major networks do. Media companies that are cable-only or internet-only don't fall under the purview of the FCC. That's why you can't swear on ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, etc but you can show gratuitous explicative-laden orgies on HBO.

cblconfederate 5y ago
youtube auto-identifies music and copyrighted material. It auto-demonetizes (meaning it makes them undiscoverable) a bunch of material from covid related to its favourite flavor of sexual activism, it removes a bunch of stuff after its own moderators review it, it removes another bunch of stuff that other users report, another bunch that various governments' trolls report, and i m sure i m also missing many other cases. Just because they offload a big part of their curation to users doesnt mean it isn't there. In no way can youtube be considered an open forum. There must be a hard threshold above which a platform stops being considered an open forum. Indeed TV license is not the right word, i mean that they should be legally responsible for the content they broadcast the same way that classic broadcasters are. If not in the US, at least i would expect the rest of the world (which has stricter requirements for broadcast TV) to have done that already.