3 ms·
So you're saying that YouTube is a publisher and should not have section 230 protections? They can't have it both ways. Sure remove content that violates polici
by justinhj 1y ago
So you're saying that YouTube is a publisher and should not have section 230 protections?
They can't have it both ways. Sure remove content that violates policies but YouTube has long set itself up as an opinion police force, choosing which ideas can be published and monetized and which cannot.
- krapp 1y agohttps://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...
- justinhj 1y agoThank you. I was completely wrong about section 230.
- bee_rider 1y agoYouTube’s business model probably wouldn’t work if they were made to be responsible for all the content they broadcasted. It would be really interesting to see a world where social media companies were treated as publishers. Might be a boon for federated services—smaller servers, finer-grained units of responsibility…
- tzs 1y agoSection 230 does not work like you think it does. In fact it is almost opposite of what you probably think it does. The whole point was to allow them to have it both ways. It makes sites not count as the publisher or speaker of third party content posted to their site, even if they remove or moderate that third party content.