5 ms·

> The problem I see here is where would the "line" be? That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candl

> The problem I see here is where would the "line" be? That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candles at a birthday stop being just a family video and starts being content? A simpler definition could be how a content is meant to be spread; whether it is "broadcast" vs. "multicast/unicast". Like, I cannot think of any legitimate reasons a kid's "performance" needs to be on tiktok. Facebook/whatsapp, maybe, if you're sharing it only with your friends, or even YouTube with linked-only if you want to send the link to grandma. But why would you ever want to publicly post a video of your child for five million+ viewers?

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Would you have allowed America’s Funniest Home Videos? Or sharing of videos on Youtube like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bit_My_Finger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bit_My_Finger Of course, when there was no money in it, it was easier to assume children were not being harmed or otherwise manipulated for the purpose of making the video.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  AFHC and the stations that aired it were at least accountable to the FCC (and advertisers) if things got weird. Advertisers knew what the show entailed. There is no such licensing or enforcement mechanism for amateur online content creators (except 2257), and the "stations" are absolved of any complicity (230). Advertisers have little idea what content they're sponsoring since content delivery is a shell game. Creators can pivot from toy unboxing videos to dildo recommendations mid-stream without any oversight. It took upstream payment processors going rogue to force compliance with 2257, because apparently we don't have a functional government to enforce its own laws anymore. The situation is not at all the same.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Yes, so I would think the first solution is proper enforcement of existing laws.
educaysean 4y ago
Because there's an audience for it?
- stametseater 4y ago
  There's an audience for kitten crush videos too. Demand for a thing doesn't excuse producing the thing.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

Would you have allowed America’s Funniest Home Videos? Or sharing of videos on Youtube like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bit_My_Finger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bit_My_Finger Of course, when there was no money in it, it was easier to assume children were not being harmed or otherwise manipulated for the purpose of making the video.

jstarfish 4y ago
AFHC and the stations that aired it were at least accountable to the FCC (and advertisers) if things got weird. Advertisers knew what the show entailed. There is no such licensing or enforcement mechanism for amateur online content creators (except 2257), and the "stations" are absolved of any complicity (230). Advertisers have little idea what content they're sponsoring since content delivery is a shell game. Creators can pivot from toy unboxing videos to dildo recommendations mid-stream without any oversight. It took upstream payment processors going rogue to force compliance with 2257, because apparently we don't have a functional government to enforce its own laws anymore. The situation is not at all the same.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Yes, so I would think the first solution is proper enforcement of existing laws.

educaysean 4y ago

Because there's an audience for it?

stametseater 4y ago
There's an audience for kitten crush videos too. Demand for a thing doesn't excuse producing the thing.