3 ms·

> You should always have a right to sue if you are harmed. Yes, but not to sue the hoster. If I offend you during a phone call, you should be able to sue ME, n

> You should always have a right to sue if you are harmed. Yes, but not to sue the hoster. If I offend you during a phone call, you should be able to sue ME, not the telco. Harmful content must be taken down once identified, and any technology reasonably helping its early identification should be put to use - but the hoster should be immune from lawsuits except if they do not act timely on legitimate takedown requests. Please, stop suggesting you should have a right to sue the hoster - this can only end up in countless avenues of free speech disappearing, and dictatorial governments (and aspiring ones) abusing it to silence their victims or dissenters.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
The bottom line for me is that people are being harmed and they have no legal means of recourse. Victims can probably sue the original uploader but what about other people who do not know it is harmful? And there is nothing to prevent users from uploading the same video forever. Is re-uploading this harmful content a crime? I think the host should be held accountable if they keep allowing the same harmful content to be uploaded again and again. The first occurrence is their notice. Future occurrences is negligence.
- gruturo 5y ago
  > I think the host should be held accountable if they keep allowing the same harmful content to be uploaded again and again. The first occurrence is their notice. Future occurrences is negligence. On this, I fully support your view. Something as trivial as a keeping list of hashes, to prevent repeat uploads of the exact same binary content, is incredibly easy to implement and I would fault any major hoster for not doing it. But people quickly learn to re-encode or subtly alter the content, so hashes, size, number of frames, etc don't match. Perceptual hashes are a lot more expensive computationally, should be much harder to dodge, but even youtube, which supposedly has the best minds behind it, copes very poorly with the many popular evasion techniques (slight distortion, horizontal mirroring, superimposing a couple thin lines, showing the content in the left pane, while showing nonsense in the right pane, etc etc) so I'm not sure they're a viable option. Can you really hold the hoster at fault when the technology doesn't exist, or is impractically slow and expensive? Would you rather have no hosters?

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

The bottom line for me is that people are being harmed and they have no legal means of recourse. Victims can probably sue the original uploader but what about other people who do not know it is harmful? And there is nothing to prevent users from uploading the same video forever. Is re-uploading this harmful content a crime? I think the host should be held accountable if they keep allowing the same harmful content to be uploaded again and again. The first occurrence is their notice. Future occurrences is negligence.

gruturo 5y ago
> I think the host should be held accountable if they keep allowing the same harmful content to be uploaded again and again. The first occurrence is their notice. Future occurrences is negligence. On this, I fully support your view. Something as trivial as a keeping list of hashes, to prevent repeat uploads of the exact same binary content, is incredibly easy to implement and I would fault any major hoster for not doing it. But people quickly learn to re-encode or subtly alter the content, so hashes, size, number of frames, etc don't match. Perceptual hashes are a lot more expensive computationally, should be much harder to dodge, but even youtube, which supposedly has the best minds behind it, copes very poorly with the many popular evasion techniques (slight distortion, horizontal mirroring, superimposing a couple thin lines, showing the content in the left pane, while showing nonsense in the right pane, etc etc) so I'm not sure they're a viable option. Can you really hold the hoster at fault when the technology doesn't exist, or is impractically slow and expensive? Would you rather have no hosters?