11–15 of 15 posts
> By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos. Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals. I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.
Don't conflate social media site hosting policies with the first amendment.
> By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos. Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals. I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.
> By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos. Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals. I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.
Are you serious? Maybe YouTube isn't so keen on hosting videos of attempted mass murders. Doubly so if the person attacks their employees. Don't conflate social media site hosting policies with the first amendment.
It doesn't need to be said that she is in the wrong, there's no excuse, no defence that can be offered - but I said it anyway in case you misunderstand me in my next statement:
Tech companies and employees and the people who use their products live in the same world. Even if there is no legal or financial responsibility between ourselves and others, it doesn't mean we can forget about the fact that we all live on the same planet. Whenever we are thinking about making a change in the code, we have a responsibility to be empathetic and also think about its effects on other members of the same society we all belong to.
> By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos. Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals. I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be effective is a real-life way for families or friends of a mentally ill and possibly violent adult to have some useful recourse. Banning her videos wouldn't have made her less violent, and a tech company wouldn't have any resources beyond what her family had. The problem wasn't the effect her videos had on other people. In the U.S., it's already illegal to threaten violence against others. "Conspiracy to…
I am not sure why i got down voted, but I was wondering if it is possible to isolate policy + enforcement of policies by the industry, through an independent body (say w3.org) over all, instead of individual companies. This will make sure that the policy is uniform no matter where the content gets posted, be it youtube or face book or any site. Think about movie ratings by Motion picture association. If a movie is ra…
Should this "universal" body be established country by country?
Should laws in Germany affect what people in the US can see?
What about competitors who want to have different policies in an attempt to give themselves a competitive advantage?
Personally I'm not a fan of the direction the major tech companies have gone with free speech, but I hope and believe that ultimately these principles will win out. However, when a man is convicted by the UK government of committing "gross offense" by recording a joke video of his pug responding to Nazi references; the situation seems a bit more dire. [1]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/german-of...