10 ms·
The art was made without issue. Distribution is not a right.
by undersuit 5y ago
The art was made without issue. Distribution is not a right.
- DenverCoder99 5y agoWhat classifies as distribution?
- TameAntelope 5y agoYouTube hosting the art. YouTube gets to decide what YouTube shows to its users.
- intricatedetail 5y agoSo they are they a publisher?
- TameAntelope 5y agoNo? They're a platform, the artist is the publisher.
- kyle_martin1 5y agoYouTube makes opinionated decisions about what gets in their search results. They edit their search results and have a team that decides that goes on the front page. That's editing. YouTube is a publisher.
- TameAntelope 5y agoNope! None of that is relevant, even remotely, in determining what a publisher is. YouTube is a platform.
- kyle_martin1 5y agoPlease explain. All you said said was “I disagree”.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- irl_chad 5y agoA publishing house publishes a book that an author writes. Digital platforms want to have it both ways - they want to (in some cases manually!!!) curate and censor recommendations, search results, and plain uploads, while also retaining their platform protections. The libertarian stance on this issue is completely untenable. I know an Olympic gymnast who can’t perform gymnastics that well.
- matthewmarkus 5y agoThe libertarian stance would be to repeal CDA 230. I don't know any libertarians that prefer statutory law to common law. "Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems."
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- TameAntelope 5y agoThis isn't really about section 230, this is about the first amendment. You cannot, and will not, ever successfully pass an enforced law that requires private companies to maintain content they themselves did not produce on their website against their will. You can repeal section 230, and the first amendment will still protect every company in the US from doing what you want them to do. There is no version of this where you win, and anti-vax or overtly hateful/conservative content sticks around on YouTube.
- matthewmarkus 5y agoThe point of repealing section 230 is to end YouTube as we know it. Basically, YouTube becomes the Washington Post and can carry fully moderated content that it selects and publishes. YouTube's current business model only exists by legislative fiat. It's time to give power back to the courts and reinstate the precedent of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
- psyc 5y agoI disagree that we’re talking about rights at all. I think the issue is really norms and expectations. Do we really need to invoke the heavy hand of law and government as the ubiquitous standard for what is acceptable?
- ofou 5y agoJust to provide context "NIH admits Fauci lied about funding Wuhan gain-of-function experiments" [1] If there's no one even making art with borderline lyrics, nobody may realize there's something besides the status quo. I'm not saying that I agree with all dissidents opinions, but I strongly disagree with messing with art. It's music for god's sake. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972283
- unclebucknasty 5y agoThis "art" is not being produced in a vacuum. YouTube is fighting a problem with disinformation that has significant implications on a public health crisis. I don't see why they should respond any differently, simply because someone is singing the disinformation.
- DenverCoder99 5y agoHow do you know that Youtube is always going to be correct when they take down anything for disinformation?
- actually_a_dog 5y agoWho cares? Whatever they take down, they can always put back up.
- DenverCoder99 5y agoWhat would you say if Youtube did that to you?
- actually_a_dog 5y agoThat depends. Am I spreading misinformation?
- 5y ago
- no_butterscotch 5y agoTech companies, controlling the distribution, now determine what is or isn't dissidence. It may not be 1984, maybe something from Neuromancer or Snow Crash (I forget which) where big corps control the information that is considered acceptable for the plebs.
- JohnHaugeland 5y agoyou sound silly stubbing for fox lies this way and trying to pretend it's ethically pased neither of those cover this. nobody takes neal stephenson seriously that way. take a class
- ipaddr 5y agoDistribution in platforms or platforms themselves. If platforms abuse their power the government can enforce standards on platforms or disallow them from their country/region. Distribution is not a right for either party.
- ResearchCode 5y agoIf you have a monopoly and your spy platform is essentially infrastructure then yes, of course it is.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- MiguelX413 5y agoThank god there's 20 alternatives to YouTube then. Daily reminder to use Peertube and that being able to reach people, centralization, and ad monetization are incompatible with freedom. Use Peertube, you can't have freedom and reach+monetization.
- DenverCoder99 5y agoI've grown pessimistic about distributed networks and the Fediverse. The Pareto distribution is this neverending bastard of a phenomena that creeps up into everything we touch. If a distributed network ends up displacing Youtube, what's going to inevitably happen is one section of the network is going consume the vast majority of the viewership and content, and they're going to start repeating the same shit that Youtube is doing right now. I'm not saying we shouldn't promote alternatives, but I am saying we haven't really figured out how to properly integrate social media into our society without it disintegrating into what we're seeing now (or worse).
- MiguelX413 5y agoI'd like for it to be abolished completely but I recognize that's just not helpful or realistic tbh
- brighton36 5y agoI was sympathetic to this ethos, until parler was taken off the internet. Youtube is probably monetizing what would otherwise be public utilities. If its not a right, then maybe the citizens should be regulating youtube, instead of the other way around.