4 ms·

The thing is the whole house of cards was built on pseudonymous growth. Most Youtube accounts can be traced back to specific people and corporations, sure, but

The thing is the whole house of cards was built on pseudonymous growth. Most Youtube accounts can be traced back to specific people and corporations, sure, but it takes a lot of manual effort to figure it out and the success rate is not 100%. And what do you do when the person is based in a country with no regards for the rule of law, no extradition treaty with the US, yet its citizens still have the ability to post videos to Youtube? What you're proposing would not only slow down the growth of Youtube, it would contract it. And proposing to Google that anything they do should get smaller for the benefit of mankind is somehow a cardinal sin against capitalism.

mrtksn 4y ago
I have this proposition that I wrote about previously. The core of the idea is that the platforms can remove your content only if you are anonymous and you can re-instantiate your content and override moderation by accepting full responsibility through revealing your true identity. So if it happens that someone post some really nasty material, the police knocks on their door and content is removed only then(some type of content can be straight out illegal, like specific types of porn).
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Here's a better idea: hold the publisher responsible for what they publish. Don't force the public to dive down rabbit-holes trying to figure out who uploaded the dodgy content, find out what jurisdiction they're in, and try to find an advocate in that jurisdiction to hold the uploader to account.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Sure, the publisher can also be responsible but YouTube is not a publisher. They are like electrical company that provides you with cables and electricity. Youtube removing videos is like the electric company cutting of your electricity when they believe there's something harmful on the TV. There are plenty of publishers on youtube and as they do curate their content, they should definitely be responsible. They are already responsible actually.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > They are like electrical company that provides you with cables and electricity. Well, except that they don't provide anything similar to cables or electricity; what they distribute is content. How's that not a publisher?
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        > they distribute is content. How's that not a publisher? Because they are not involved in the publishing? They are a platform where the publishers engage in publishing.
        philistine 4y ago
        They're publishers to me. They produce, even if it's with computers, a landing page where they recommend different. They produce recommendations. I don't get how that's not publishing.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        I agree that the lines are blurry. They definitely have a publisher and producer aspect with their discovery algorithms and their monetisation.
        denton-scratch 4y ago
        I don't think the lines are blurry. Discover algorithms and monetisation are not content. I understand the desire to protect indy content from megacorps litigation. Some kind of protection is needed. But swearing that black is white is a "solution" that's bound to cause new problems.

mrtksn 4y ago

I have this proposition that I wrote about previously. The core of the idea is that the platforms can remove your content only if you are anonymous and you can re-instantiate your content and override moderation by accepting full responsibility through revealing your true identity. So if it happens that someone post some really nasty material, the police knocks on their door and content is removed only then(some type of content can be straight out illegal, like specific types of porn).

denton-scratch 4y ago
Here's a better idea: hold the publisher responsible for what they publish. Don't force the public to dive down rabbit-holes trying to figure out who uploaded the dodgy content, find out what jurisdiction they're in, and try to find an advocate in that jurisdiction to hold the uploader to account.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Sure, the publisher can also be responsible but YouTube is not a publisher. They are like electrical company that provides you with cables and electricity. Youtube removing videos is like the electric company cutting of your electricity when they believe there's something harmful on the TV. There are plenty of publishers on youtube and as they do curate their content, they should definitely be responsible. They are already responsible actually.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > They are like electrical company that provides you with cables and electricity. Well, except that they don't provide anything similar to cables or electricity; what they distribute is content. How's that not a publisher?
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      > they distribute is content. How's that not a publisher? Because they are not involved in the publishing? They are a platform where the publishers engage in publishing.
      - philistine 4y ago
        They're publishers to me. They produce, even if it's with computers, a landing page where they recommend different. They produce recommendations. I don't get how that's not publishing.
        mrtksn 4y ago
        I agree that the lines are blurry. They definitely have a publisher and producer aspect with their discovery algorithms and their monetisation.
        denton-scratch 4y ago
        I don't think the lines are blurry. Discover algorithms and monetisation are not content. I understand the desire to protect indy content from megacorps litigation. Some kind of protection is needed. But swearing that black is white is a "solution" that's bound to cause new problems.