4 ms·
I think the entirety of their argument is: > social media sites don’t produce content. They merely host it. Millions of users create the content expecting it w
by alecbz 3y ago
I think the entirety of their argument is:
> social media sites don’t produce content. They merely host it. Millions of users create the content expecting it will be widely available.
?
But this feels pretty simplistic. Not convinced that people do (or should) upload content expecting they or anyone else can access it however they want.
If you create the content then it's obviously yours forever. If you also decide post it to a platform, why is it the platform's social responsibility to allow access to that content for free.
- andrewaylett 3y agoThis cuts both ways -- if I'm not going to allow access to that content for free, why would you give me your content? The ToS might allow for it, but people are routinely dismayed when companies stick to the letter of what their ToS allows them to do, especially when they start doing things they never did before.
- alecbz 3y ago> if I'm not going to allow access to that content for free, why would you give me your content? A bunch of reasons potentially, wider reach probably being the main one, but maybe also stuff like ways for your audience to interact with you/the content/each other. > The ToS might allow for it "It's in the ToS so it's fine" is a bad argument, but I'm not saying that. I guess there's two things: a) empirically, do users actually expect that content be available "for free" (in general? just to themselves?) from a platform b) is there a "good reason" that this should be a social expectation? a)'s a tricky question with multiple parts but I'm not especially convinced. I imagine a lot of users aren't even really thinking about that kind of thing b) I could imagine being convinced about, but "they didn't make the content" doesn't feel sufficient.