3 ms·

> Surely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of tortfeasance against someone is libel. It's hardly libel for YouTube to state that they've received a c

> Surely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of tortfeasance against someone is libel. It's hardly libel for YouTube to state that they've received a copyright claim, and taken the video down as a consequence. They're just stating facts, they're not making any assertions regarding the accuracy or correctness of the copyright claim, simply stating that it exists. > Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free speech seems like something the government should act on? You seem to misunderstand what free speech means. Free speech means protection from the government from having your speech prevented, or compelled. That same protection extends to companies. To have the government punish YouTube for failing to distribute a video, would itself be violating YouTube's own free speech, and in the US, and clear and obvious violation of the 1st ammendment.

mjburgess 2y ago
Unless the government deems youtube a provider of a neutral platform for user content -- as it does in section 230.
- krapp 2y ago
  https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... Section 230 does not require that a plaform be neutral.
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    I think this misunderstands the sense in which 230 is at issue. It's not that 230 itself requires anything --- it's that its a law in place at the whim of lawmakers who granted it expecting a certain sort of behaviour. The relevant claim is, "if youtube doesn't behave more neutrally, expect one side of the political divide to elect people who will make it". This is how the intention of the law is currently read: that it will persist so long as platforms do, in effect, treat user content without editorial bias. Perhaps my phrasing wasn't that clear. By "deem" I mean, unless the gov starts regulating youtube like a utility. It seems fairly likely that this intention behind 230 will be codified soon, and an explicit notion of a "platform" (as in the DMA) will be introduced. The idea that utilities, "platforms", and the like function in a way which requires 'equal treatment' is common across the law -- since they function much like states in the provision of universal services, or public spaces. Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading of the principle of free speech is really the one which misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.
    - avianlyric 2y ago
      > if youtube doesn't behave more neutrally, expect one side of the political divide to elect people who will make it There have been plenty of threats by various politicians already, to enforce “neutrality” on entities like YouTube. But a couple of persistent issues keep rearing their ugly heads. 1. How do you determine “political neutrality”? The only way to be truly neutral is to do zero moderation of any content, and nobody is seriously suggesting that’s a good idea. 2. On what basis could YouTube be ruled a utility? If even ISPs aren’t considered utilities, then how on earth can YouTube be a utility? Utilities are services that generally considered as a basic requirement for participating in civil society. It not clear how anyone could consider YouTube such an essential service. > Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading of the principle of free speech is really the one which misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms. In the U.S. such a reading of the first amendment, and the principle of free speech, has been consistently and repeatedly upheld by U.S. courts. Law makers can’t legislate their way around that, they would need to literally change the U.S. constitution. Something that requires a 2/3 majority in both congress and the senate, plus 3/4 of all state legislatures need to ratify it as well. For better or worse, the U.S. constitution provides no flexibility for the “evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.” An environment where the U.S. government (and specifically the U.S. government) starts engaging in such aggressive regulation of entities like YouTube, is so distant from current state of free speech in the US, that’s it’s a practically useless argument to consider. So much of the political, legal and social framework of the U.S. will have changed, that it would effectively be an entirely different country and culture to what exists today.
NegativeK 2y ago
It feels like the org issuing the copyright claims would be at fault for any lost revenue. If the org hadn't issued the false claim, the channel wouldn't've had the video taken down. If a channel hits three strikes for it and is nuked in entirety, the lost revenue is even larger.

mjburgess 2y ago

Unless the government deems youtube a provider of a neutral platform for user content -- as it does in section 230.

krapp 2y ago
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... Section 230 does not require that a plaform be neutral.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  I think this misunderstands the sense in which 230 is at issue. It's not that 230 itself requires anything --- it's that its a law in place at the whim of lawmakers who granted it expecting a certain sort of behaviour. The relevant claim is, "if youtube doesn't behave more neutrally, expect one side of the political divide to elect people who will make it". This is how the intention of the law is currently read: that it will persist so long as platforms do, in effect, treat user content without editorial bias. Perhaps my phrasing wasn't that clear. By "deem" I mean, unless the gov starts regulating youtube like a utility. It seems fairly likely that this intention behind 230 will be codified soon, and an explicit notion of a "platform" (as in the DMA) will be introduced. The idea that utilities, "platforms", and the like function in a way which requires 'equal treatment' is common across the law -- since they function much like states in the provision of universal services, or public spaces. Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading of the principle of free speech is really the one which misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.
  - avianlyric 2y ago
    > if youtube doesn't behave more neutrally, expect one side of the political divide to elect people who will make it There have been plenty of threats by various politicians already, to enforce “neutrality” on entities like YouTube. But a couple of persistent issues keep rearing their ugly heads. 1. How do you determine “political neutrality”? The only way to be truly neutral is to do zero moderation of any content, and nobody is seriously suggesting that’s a good idea. 2. On what basis could YouTube be ruled a utility? If even ISPs aren’t considered utilities, then how on earth can YouTube be a utility? Utilities are services that generally considered as a basic requirement for participating in civil society. It not clear how anyone could consider YouTube such an essential service. > Thus the "well, actually!" objection to a narrow reading of the principle of free speech is really the one which misunderstand the principles at play and the evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms. In the U.S. such a reading of the first amendment, and the principle of free speech, has been consistently and repeatedly upheld by U.S. courts. Law makers can’t legislate their way around that, they would need to literally change the U.S. constitution. Something that requires a 2/3 majority in both congress and the senate, plus 3/4 of all state legislatures need to ratify it as well. For better or worse, the U.S. constitution provides no flexibility for the “evolving legal and social understanding of mass-participation online platforms.” An environment where the U.S. government (and specifically the U.S. government) starts engaging in such aggressive regulation of entities like YouTube, is so distant from current state of free speech in the US, that’s it’s a practically useless argument to consider. So much of the political, legal and social framework of the U.S. will have changed, that it would effectively be an entirely different country and culture to what exists today.

NegativeK 2y ago

It feels like the org issuing the copyright claims would be at fault for any lost revenue. If the org hadn't issued the false claim, the channel wouldn't've had the video taken down. If a channel hits three strikes for it and is nuked in entirety, the lost revenue is even larger.