331–340 of 471 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it theirs to force them to host content Google wishes to delete?
It's theirs to host the videos themselves if they deem them worthy of being hosted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
State violence is being used to force a private company to host content it finds objectionable. Who's the technocrat here?
I wonder if you would agree to the following equivalent: > State violence is being used to force a christian bakery to bake (gay/muslim/etc) cakes it finds objectionable. Who's the villain here? The more you open service to the public, the more control over your output you lose because then it becomes a matter of discrimination.
Relativism doesn't really work, does it. There must be objective standards. Otherwise, power is all that matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> may cause harm Literally anything can be argued to be "harmful."
Well at least the government isn't mandating that all "harmful" content be taken off the web... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/15/online-ha... (For what it's worth, the proposed law now refers to "safety" rather than "harms").
>UK
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There're many movie theaters, but only one youtube in the whole world. Youtube and facebook are natural monopolies due to their network effect. All the older natural monopolies, water networks, electricity networks, landline phone networks, railroad networks, and the rest of them are either nationalized, or regulated heavily. It's long overdue to add social networks to the list.
There's only one YouTube, but lots of video sharing sites. You can put your material on Bitchute, Vimeo, ....
Their monopoly is their social network. People want to publish video where the audience is, the global audience happen to be on youtube, and going to stay there because that's where most videos are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is as it should be IMO. When you position yourself to be a de-facto public square, you shouldn't get to selectively operate like a private club when it suits you.
Isn't this punishing Youtube for their own success at achieving a dominant market position? They didn't position themselves as the de-facto public square so much as became one due to lack of competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This "platform vs publisher" thing is a myth based on a misunderstand of how Section 230 works. The law doesn't actually distinguish between the two.
The law is written by people, so it frankly doesn't matter what it says currently because it can (and probably will) change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content.
> Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. Why? > Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. Of course you can, you just can't refuse service based on legally protected classes, that's the exception not the rule. > Platforms should just obey law and at most create a process where users and lawmakers can express and enforce their opinion on content. Platforms shoul…
> Why?
Because if it has that right it should have the full responsibility for everything it publishes. With no leeway.
>> Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers.
> Of course you can, you just can't refuse service based on legally protected classes, that's the exception not the rule.
Depends on the local law. For example in Poland if you have a store and you put up some good for sale and mark it with a price, you can't refuse it to sell it to anyone that is willing to pay that price. No special classes, just a simple rule. If you are selling, you are selling.
> Platforms should operate their sites however they like within the confines of the law and individual users can decide which sites they prefer to use based on how those sites operate.
Right, and the law should say that they can't have an opinion about the content they publish, and they can't take down or promote stuff based on that opinion.