3 ms·

> Someone want to throw out there a better way to combat disinformation than just armchair criticizing their decision? Actually, people have, we've just moved

by mbesto 5y ago

> Someone want to throw out there a better way to combat disinformation than just armchair criticizing their decision? Actually, people have, we've just moved on from the more important discussion which is whether YouTube (and other similar forms of social media / UGC) should exist in its current form. I personally do not like regulation, but this is a situation in which the harm of social media / UGC is starting to outshine its benefit. I'm not sure if an outright ban of sites like YT is warranted but I think the frictionless experience of uploading/commenting/etc. on YT should be questioned.

nradov 5y ago
Fortunately the First Amendment doesn't allow the US government to regulate such activities just because elitist authoritarians consider them harmful. This is an area where fundamental rights overrule cost-benefit analysis.
- mbesto 5y ago
  I agree in principle, but I think it's worth exploring analogous examples. For example, doesn't the FCC regulate what is on TV in some form?
  - nradov 5y ago
    The FCC has no legal authority to regulate anti-vaccine content on TV. (I don't support such content, just explaining the law.) The FCC has some limited authority to regulate obscenity and indecency on over-the-air broadcast channels only. Congress gave them this authority because broadcast spectrum is a scarce public resource that reaches into everyone's home whether they want it or not. However the FCC generally has no authority over cable, Internet, or satellite content. Those systems aren't subject to spectrum scarcity and have effectively infinite capacity. https://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-usa-televsion-indecency-idUSBRE85K10W20120621 https://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-usa-televsi...
    - mbesto 5y ago
      That makes sense, thanks! I'm wondering if there is some sort of regulation possibility on their processing of content or algorithms. In other words, similar to the cookie law in EU (which has an abysmal implementation) whereby individuals have more control on what they can and can't see and what gets promoted to them.
      - nradov 5y ago
        In general content promotion algorithms can't be regulated because a recommendation on which videos to watch is legally considered an opinion and thus Constitutionally protected free speech. The Supreme Court would probably only allow regulations in two narrow areas. The first would be where the promoted content is itself not Constitutionally protected due to obscenity or incitement of violence. The second would be commercial speech targeting children, who are legally considered as needing additional protection. For example the FTC can regulate some aspects of online services for minors under COPPA. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/children%27s-privacy https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-... Individuals can always control what they see by not using YouTube.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Translation: "elitist authoritarians" => "those who know what they are talking about". https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

by mbesto 5y ago

nradov 5y ago

Fortunately the First Amendment doesn't allow the US government to regulate such activities just because elitist authoritarians consider them harmful. This is an area where fundamental rights overrule cost-benefit analysis.

mbesto 5y ago
I agree in principle, but I think it's worth exploring analogous examples. For example, doesn't the FCC regulate what is on TV in some form?
- nradov 5y ago
  The FCC has no legal authority to regulate anti-vaccine content on TV. (I don't support such content, just explaining the law.) The FCC has some limited authority to regulate obscenity and indecency on over-the-air broadcast channels only. Congress gave them this authority because broadcast spectrum is a scarce public resource that reaches into everyone's home whether they want it or not. However the FCC generally has no authority over cable, Internet, or satellite content. Those systems aren't subject to spectrum scarcity and have effectively infinite capacity. https://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-usa-televsion-indecency-idUSBRE85K10W20120621 https://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-usa-televsi...
  - mbesto 5y ago
    That makes sense, thanks! I'm wondering if there is some sort of regulation possibility on their processing of content or algorithms. In other words, similar to the cookie law in EU (which has an abysmal implementation) whereby individuals have more control on what they can and can't see and what gets promoted to them.
    - nradov 5y ago
      In general content promotion algorithms can't be regulated because a recommendation on which videos to watch is legally considered an opinion and thus Constitutionally protected free speech. The Supreme Court would probably only allow regulations in two narrow areas. The first would be where the promoted content is itself not Constitutionally protected due to obscenity or incitement of violence. The second would be commercial speech targeting children, who are legally considered as needing additional protection. For example the FTC can regulate some aspects of online services for minors under COPPA. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/children%27s-privacy https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-... Individuals can always control what they see by not using YouTube.
mcguire 5y ago
Translation: "elitist authoritarians" => "those who know what they are talking about". https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475