5 ms·

Which will result in them getting regulated. After being dragged before Congress over and over and being asked "why aren't you doing something about this?" And

Which will result in them getting regulated. After being dragged before Congress over and over and being asked "why aren't you doing something about this?" And by the way, not sure what you mean by "required by law." Does that include when corporate lawyers say "if we leave this up, we are at risk of a judge fining us (or awarding someone suing us) a billion dollars." The law isn't crystal clear and black and white, until you end up in front of a judge or jury. The legal system in the US isn't all statutory, it is left for courts to decide based on precedent and, when there is none to draw from, higher and higher courts. It all seems simple until you actually think about these things.

godshatter 5y ago
> And by the way, not sure what you mean by "required by law." Does that include when corporate lawyers say "if we leave this up, we are at risk of a judge fining us (or awarding someone suing us) a billion dollars." I was thinking more along the lines of removing posts when ordered to by the government they are incorporated under or by one in whose country to they do business. And if someone finds child porn or something on their servers, point them at the user that posted it. Which might work if they didn't mess with user's posts unless they absolutely had to. They are only in this current mess because they voluntarily curate, often aggressively.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  > They are only in this current mess because they voluntarily curate, often aggressively. Does "make videos with lots of upvotes more visible" count as voluntary curation? Even in the absence of that, hopefully you can see why they'd want to remove content as described in the points I listed above. I'm not all the comfortable with all curation/moderation/censoring/etc being based on "government orders." That means that government will get more involved in this process, and corrupt governments will have more ability to control the narrative. Not sure you've thought this through. It also is a very costly process currently for YouTube and facebook (etc). Do you want taxes to pay for that?

godshatter 5y ago

> And by the way, not sure what you mean by "required by law." Does that include when corporate lawyers say "if we leave this up, we are at risk of a judge fining us (or awarding someone suing us) a billion dollars." I was thinking more along the lines of removing posts when ordered to by the government they are incorporated under or by one in whose country to they do business. And if someone finds child porn or something on their servers, point them at the user that posted it. Which might work if they didn't mess with user's posts unless they absolutely had to. They are only in this current mess because they voluntarily curate, often aggressively.

robbrown451 5y ago
> They are only in this current mess because they voluntarily curate, often aggressively. Does "make videos with lots of upvotes more visible" count as voluntary curation? Even in the absence of that, hopefully you can see why they'd want to remove content as described in the points I listed above. I'm not all the comfortable with all curation/moderation/censoring/etc being based on "government orders." That means that government will get more involved in this process, and corrupt governments will have more ability to control the narrative. Not sure you've thought this through. It also is a very costly process currently for YouTube and facebook (etc). Do you want taxes to pay for that?