4 ms·

If the state's going to host it, then their bar should be whether it's legal or not. If they want to put scary warnings around certain content or lock some of

If the state's going to host it, then their bar should be whether it's legal or not. If they want to put scary warnings around certain content or lock some of it behind age restriction, sure, fine. But if they are going to use public funds to host a government run publicly available video sharing platform, they should be very cautious about removing any content that doesn't violate actual laws. Free speech and all that, if anyone still remembers the concept.

throwaway6734 5y ago
Doesn't the state already ban nudity/language on public broadcast, film, and radio?
- retrac 5y ago
  Specifics depend on the country. In the USA, over the air broadcast is restricted in content on the premise that broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource, and that you don't have much choice with what you see when you tune in. That argument gets pretty weak with point-to-point networks with nearly unlimited bandwidth, as I see it. An analogy might be the difference between ads with nudity on billboards (I believe that can be prohibited in the USA?) and ads with nudity in a print magazine going to a subscribership expecting such ads (protected by the 1A, including for mailing through the USPS). Public libraries are perhaps another source of analogy. My local library system has some of the most vile and objectionable works ever printed on the shelves due to popular demand. Many public libraries in Canada and the USA are quite absolute about that with regards to free expression. For example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/porn-library-ottawa-pornography-parent-children-1.4284511 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/porn-library-ottawa-po... "Library patrons allowed to surf porn, Ottawa mom discovers"
foobarian 5y ago
Yes, exactly. And deciding legality should be done better than current automatic moderations that punish innocent content without a working appeals process.
- bdamm 5y ago
  Requiring that content be sourced from actual humans in good faith, and identifying people violating terms of service by spamming with puppet bots would be a good start. If the service is being operated by a national government, then you could require posters to prove residence or citizenship. But would anyone really want to use such a service? Could it possibly be even produced or operated efficiently? Once you put strict legal requirements on the operating entity it will get very slow, expensive, and user unfriendly.
- cyberge99 5y ago
  The USA used to have a Fairness Doctrine. It required political viewpoints to have equal air time. It made politics much more boring. As it should be.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Er, politics in the period of 1949-1985 was not, generally, “more boring” than 1985 to present. The last few years maybe have achieved the undesirable level of not-boring that was generally the case through most of the 1950s, 1960s, and much of the 1970s, but certainly overall the post-Fairness Doctrine period was more boring than the Fairness Doctrine period. (The Neoliberal Consensus is probably a bigger factor than the FD on that, though; it’s pretty hard to attribute much of anything about the overall tenor of politics to the FD.)

throwaway6734 5y ago

Doesn't the state already ban nudity/language on public broadcast, film, and radio?

retrac 5y ago
Specifics depend on the country. In the USA, over the air broadcast is restricted in content on the premise that broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource, and that you don't have much choice with what you see when you tune in. That argument gets pretty weak with point-to-point networks with nearly unlimited bandwidth, as I see it. An analogy might be the difference between ads with nudity on billboards (I believe that can be prohibited in the USA?) and ads with nudity in a print magazine going to a subscribership expecting such ads (protected by the 1A, including for mailing through the USPS). Public libraries are perhaps another source of analogy. My local library system has some of the most vile and objectionable works ever printed on the shelves due to popular demand. Many public libraries in Canada and the USA are quite absolute about that with regards to free expression. For example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/porn-library-ottawa-pornography-parent-children-1.4284511 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/porn-library-ottawa-po... "Library patrons allowed to surf porn, Ottawa mom discovers"

foobarian 5y ago

Yes, exactly. And deciding legality should be done better than current automatic moderations that punish innocent content without a working appeals process.

bdamm 5y ago
Requiring that content be sourced from actual humans in good faith, and identifying people violating terms of service by spamming with puppet bots would be a good start. If the service is being operated by a national government, then you could require posters to prove residence or citizenship. But would anyone really want to use such a service? Could it possibly be even produced or operated efficiently? Once you put strict legal requirements on the operating entity it will get very slow, expensive, and user unfriendly.
cyberge99 5y ago
The USA used to have a Fairness Doctrine. It required political viewpoints to have equal air time. It made politics much more boring. As it should be.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Er, politics in the period of 1949-1985 was not, generally, “more boring” than 1985 to present. The last few years maybe have achieved the undesirable level of not-boring that was generally the case through most of the 1950s, 1960s, and much of the 1970s, but certainly overall the post-Fairness Doctrine period was more boring than the Fairness Doctrine period. (The Neoliberal Consensus is probably a bigger factor than the FD on that, though; it’s pretty hard to attribute much of anything about the overall tenor of politics to the FD.)