4 ms·
I’m reminded of how banks require people to fill out forms explaining what they’re doing, where it’s expected that criminals will lie, but this is an easy thing
by skybrian 3y ago
I’m reminded of how banks require people to fill out forms explaining what they’re doing, where it’s expected that criminals will lie, but this is an easy thing to prosecute later after they’re caught.
Could a similar argument be applied here? It doesn’t seem like there is much in the way of consequences for lying to Google. But I suppose they have other ways of checking for it, and catching someone lying is a signal that makes the account more suspicious.
- antoniojtorres 3y agoIt’s a compliance checkbox for the most part I think. They can stay on top of new legislation by claiming they are providing tools to deal with misinformation, whereas it’d be easier to say that they are encouraging the proliferation of misinformation by not doing anything about it. It certainly shifts the legal question in the way you described it would seem.
- danpalmer 3y agoYeah I think it’s a very similar approach to what you’ve described. The scale of YouTube, I don’t think you can just start banning content you don’t like. Instead you have to have a policy, clearly documented, and then you can start enforcing based on that policy. The other thing is that they don’t necessarily want to ban all of this content. For example a video demonstrating how AI can be used to create misinformation and showing examples, would be fairly clearly “morally” ok. The policy being that you have to declare it allows for this sort of content to live on the platform, but allows you to filter it out in certain contexts where it may be inappropriate (searches for election coverage?) and allows you to badge it for users (like Covid information tags).