4 ms·
But you are saying in this analogy that the restaurant should post negative reviews from its customers, say on its website. Why should they? It’s not like they’
by yibg 5y ago
But you are saying in this analogy that the restaurant should post negative reviews from its customers, say on its website. Why should they? It’s not like they’re taking down negative reviews (videos) from things they don’t own.
- xigoi 5y agoI don't think you understand the analogy…
- yibg 5y agoI don't think you read my original reply?
- xigoi 5y agoI have. Nobody is saying that YouTube should post negative reviews of itself. We're saying that a website which pretty much has a monopoly on hosting videos shouldn't abuse its position by trying to be the “ministry of truth”, and it's fair to criticize it even though it's legally allowed to do that.
- yibg 5y agoIsn't the basic question, should youtube be forced to do something it doesn't want to? In this case, host videos it finds objectionable for whatever reason. Same way they don't allow porn for example. From the way I see it there are only a few options: 1) Youtube hosts everything that's legal, no filters at all 2) Youtube decides what it does and doesn't host 3) Somethings are ok (e.g. news / fake news), others are not (porn). Who decides what's ok and not ok if it's not the legal system or youtube itself?
- xigoi 5y agoHow about this: YouTube can host whatever it wants, but it will federate with PeerTube or something so that people can discover other content too.