Parent in full: >> A newspaper is a carefully crafted collection of articles by the editors. 720,000 hours of video gets uploaded to YouTube every day. Equatin

Parent in full: >> A newspaper is a carefully crafted collection of articles by the editors. 720,000 hours of video gets uploaded to YouTube every day. Equating the two is simply not reasonable. YouTube is more like a library or archive, where users themselves decide what to consume. You: > So this comment hinges on a particularly egregious bit of logic: The idea that the fact that 720,000 hours of video get uploaded to it justifies poor curation, because being responsible for it is hard. You're trying to win this one- in part- by covertly asserting your definition of Youtube being a curator. Which directly charges over & ignores exactly what the parent said. Curators operate by tastes. Not by moderation guidelines. If youtube took 1/2 the 720,000 hours of day of video & said, nah, we don't want the rest, you might maybe have a leg to stand on. It's a silly pretense, calling them a "curator," or a "publisher," or whatever other pre-contemporary shoebox of an idea you strive to fit them into. There's simply no parallel. We never could amass information like this before; it physically was not possible. We never could allow so many visitors to an archive of humanity before; it physically was not possible. What's happening now does not mirror the past, it is something new, and doesn't fit the compact tight little vintage models you try shoving it into. You were a librarian, so you might enjoy a reading suggestion on an idea to pool human knowledge & expand it's access. John G Kemeny, Chairman of Math & Astronomy at Dartmouth, wrote "A Library for 2000 A.D." (and 2100 AD), written ~1962, imagining a vast globe-spanning system of teleconnected/replicating microfiche to capture human knowledge & development. It was an epic & expansive proposal, expecting 10,000,000 items (mostly articles, papers, some books) per year added (and increasing in velocity). He writes of high-science-fiction of the day, but today it feels so unbeleivably antiquated, prehistoric. We are unimaginably more empowered, more capable than he could have imagined. Things have changed vastly in 10~20 the past years (20TB hard drives for $450!), and trying to impose old framings to view & understand & govern what we expect or how we regulate is a huge hazard. I think it's imperative that we recognize that there are things without precedent, and be willing to adapt & accept that there are new things. Sites that accept user-content are, to me, a phenomenon begat by possibility. Stores & businesses did not have place for words, short of a bulletin board, before; it wasn't practical & it wouldn't go far. Now that expression has such new potential, we must be willing to face & accept that preliminary fact, rather than regress to using only old patterns to make our decisions.