• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

News YouTube Says it Has 'No Obligation' To Host Anyone's Video

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,573
3,880
720
Speaking of YouTube and moderation, the Google-owned video service is rolling out updated terms of service on December 10th, and a new line acts as a reminder that the company doesn't have to keep any video up that it doesn't want to. From a report:"YouTube is under no obligation to host or serve content," the new terms of service policy reads. It's another way of saying that just because YouTube is a relatively open platform, it doesn't mean that the company is required to keep videos up. YouTube has faced criticism from all sides over its video removal process. Some critics argue that YouTube could do more to take down videos that butt up against the company's rules but don't outright violate them; others argue that YouTube ought to be a fully open platform and shouldn't control what remains up and what doesn't. Executives have long defended the platform as a champion of free speech, but have started to clamp down on the type of videos allowed to circulate.

Doesn't it turn them into "publishers"?
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,092
544
1,605
USA
Speaking of YouTube and moderation, the Google-owned video service is rolling out updated terms of service on December 10th, and a new line acts as a reminder that the company doesn't have to keep any video up that it doesn't want to. From a report:"YouTube is under no obligation to host or serve content," the new terms of service policy reads. It's another way of saying that just because YouTube is a relatively open platform, it doesn't mean that the company is required to keep videos up. YouTube has faced criticism from all sides over its video removal process. Some critics argue that YouTube could do more to take down videos that butt up against the company's rules but don't outright violate them; others argue that YouTube ought to be a fully open platform and shouldn't control what remains up and what doesn't. Executives have long defended the platform as a champion of free speech, but have started to clamp down on the type of videos allowed to circulate.

Doesn't it turn them into "publishers"?
no it doesn't turn them into "publishers"

they remain a "provider" of an "interactive computer service".

The law is very easy to understand: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

The relevant portion is even titled (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

Providers and users of an interactive computers service are neither publishers nor speakers of any content they do not provide:
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


Both providers and users of interactive computers services are specifically allowed to curate content as they see fit:
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or


It's the same way this very forum works.
NeoGaf moderation was under no obligation to host or serve any of this content: https://www.neogaf.com/bans/

How is this so hard for you people?

Remove their special status. They are publishers prima facie.

Glad they admitted it.
They are not publishers, and they are not admitting they are publishers. They are providers of an internet computer service and are behaving as such, within the bounds granted to this "special status". Why should their "special status" be removed when they are using it as intended???

Nevermind that their is nothing "special" about this status, as it is the status anybody hosting any public server falls under...

Why yes, yes it does.
If you don't understand what is going on, and aren't interested in correcting your ignorance... sure, sure it does
 
Last edited:

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,581
2,892
1,500
no it doesn't turn them into "publishers"

they remain a "provider" of an "interactive computer service".

The law is very easy to understand: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

The relevant portion is even titled (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

Providers and users of an interactive computers service are neither publishers nor speakers of any content they do not provide:
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


Both providers and users of interactive computers services are specifically allowed to curate content as they see fit:
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or


It's the same way this very forum works.
NeoGaf moderation was under no obligation to host or serve any of this content: https://www.neogaf.com/bans/

How is this so hard for you people?



They are not publishers, and they are not admitting they are publishers. They are providers of an internet computer service and are behaving as such, within the bounds granted to this "special status". Why should their "special status" be removed when they are using it as intended???

Nevermind that their is nothing "special" about this status, as it is the status anybody hosting any public server falls under...



If you don't understand what is going on, and aren't interested in correcting your ignorance... sure
Don't come in and act as if your the sole arbiter of what constitutes a publisher as this very topic is being widely debated, and is even being discussed by congressional members.

It is absolutely not as black and white as your comments make it out to be.

Google is well aware that it has to be very careful as to what it takes down, and keeps up as to not appear to be deciding what stays and goes based on anything really as it would make them a publisher of sorts(technicalities are what gets companies, and individuals into trouble all the time)and rid them of protections that would doom them.

This is a way of trying to protect their own ass here and only time will tell if it's enough.
 

Rylix

Member
Jun 6, 2018
171
240
250
This is correct. It is their platform and they have no requirement to host anything they don't want to.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,581
2,892
1,500
If they don't want to host your content because it violates their Terms of Service then they have no obligation to do so.
Inco
This is correct. It is their platform and they have no requirement to host anything they don't want to.
Incorrect. This battle was fought years ago by the broadcast companies and they lost.

A "platform" is a platform no matter what form it takes.

When the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on social media censorship late last month, liberal Democratic congressman Ted Lieu transformed into a hardcore libertarian. “This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing,” he said, because “the First Amendment applies to the government, not private companies.” He added that just as the government cannot tell Fox News what content to air, “we can’t tell Facebook what content to filter,” because that would be unconstitutional.
Lieu is incorrect.

While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.



YouTube, Facebook, e.t.c are treading into dangerous territory and are at risk to opening up a can of worms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and pramod

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
7,652
10,312
695
38
they are a private company, of course they can host whatever content they want.

everyone is entitled these days. just because people use it doesn't mean it's "theirs". it's funny whenever youtubers complain about it. i'm like, "why don't you start your own global video streaming company if it's so easy"
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: TheGreatYosh

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,581
2,892
1,500
I'm not sure why my post above has lines crossed out to be honest. It shouldn't, but it does.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,092
544
1,605
USA
Don't come in and act as if your the sole arbiter of what constitutes a publisher as this very topic is being widely debated, and is even being discussed by congressional members.
:messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy:

what part of me posting the exact law that governs this matter did you miss?

I am not acting as a sole arbiter.

The law is.

Pointing out that you are factually wrong about the law doesn't make me an arbiter of anything. It makes you incorrect

It is absolutely not as black and white as your comments make it out to be.

Google is well aware that it has to be very careful as to what it takes down, and keeps up as to not appear to be deciding what stays and goes based on anything really as it would make them a publisher of sorts(technicalities are what gets companies, and individuals into trouble all the time)and rid them of protections that would doom them.

This is a way of trying to protect their own ass here and only time will tell if it's enough.
Google is acting well within their rights

You are right that the law could be challenged, and even overturned. But this is the case for any law.

And you are well aware that some disingenuous actors threaten to challenge the law on a regular basis for personal reasons. And some of them are actual lawmakers. You are right that Google is worried that these bad actors may gain a large enough foothold at some point to pull these protections. These bad actors are attacking this law because they stand to gain significantly if they are allowed to post BS across all services unchecked...

In addition, Google are still incentivized to be careful about what is taken down because taking down the wrong stuff can hurt their brand or trust in their consumer base. Also, Google can still be sued for discrimination if it seems they are not following their own stated policies when curating content, which is precisely why this TOS change is important. With all this misinformation about Section 203 spreading around the net, Google wants to make it perfectly clear that they have the right to remove whatever they like.
Such lawsuits are largely untested in court. But even if Google lost such a suit, it would not mean they aren't allowed to curate, just that they need to be more upfront with their users about how it's done

My point is that Google curating content does not make them a "publisher" as per the law, and my point stands

Less cuntiscending, more nuance please.
you get what you give

and you cut all the nuance necessary from the post you quoted; it's their if you really want it
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,092
544
1,605
USA
I'm not sure why my post above has lines crossed out to be honest. It shouldn't, but it does.
:messenger_tears_of_joy:

Freudian slip maybe? You crossed out the false part of the statement you posted

What you posted is Ted Cruz's opinion of a law he doesn't seem to understand, and doesn't seem interested in understanding. which is a little scary since you guys keep voting for him despite his lack of interest in understanding how the laws he votes on work

it was probably striked out because it's not true, it's an opinion, and a bad one
Ted Cruz is not the sole arbiter of the purpose of this law

Ask the guy who actually wrote Section 230 what it's purpose is: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-section-230-facebook-regulations-neutrality

Ted Cruz is either dumb, or purposefully wrong in order to garner support from dumb people, don't let him take you with him

Also, did you write what you bolded in that other post, or did you copy/paste it from somewhere?

Cause it looks like you ripped it wholesale from city-journal.org.
Any specific reason you didn't want to credit them?

Once again, I posted the actual law
You are posting extreme right wing sources like Ted Cruz and City Journal
Do yourself a favor and read and understand the actual law
then ask yourself if there might be a reason Ted Cruz and his buddies want you to misunderstand it...
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,092
544
1,605
USA
What are jokes? I know, it’s tough for the ctrl-left with them.

Missed opportunity not quoting my avatar after the shit comment. I set it up for you and everything.
Why would I quote your avatar?

I quoted you being a cunt in this thread because the point of cunt-ention was why I responded to you cunt-ily
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,165
31,807
1,170
Why would I quote your avatar?

I quoted you being a cunt in this thread because the point of cunt-ention was why I responded to you cunt-ily
Dogs... smelling shit... woof.

We’re all a bunch of cunts. Some condescendingly derpy more than others.
 
Last edited:

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,142
2,626
1,055
no it doesn't turn them into "publishers"

they remain a "provider" of an "interactive computer service".

The law is very easy to understand: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

The relevant portion is even titled (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

Providers and users of an interactive computers service are neither publishers nor speakers of any content they do not provide:
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


Both providers and users of interactive computers services are specifically allowed to curate content as they see fit:
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or


It's the same way this very forum works.
NeoGaf moderation was under no obligation to host or serve any of this content: https://www.neogaf.com/bans/

How is this so hard for you people?



They are not publishers, and they are not admitting they are publishers. They are providers of an internet computer service and are behaving as such, within the bounds granted to this "special status". Why should their "special status" be removed when they are using it as intended???

Nevermind that their is nothing "special" about this status, as it is the status anybody hosting any public server falls under...



If you don't understand what is going on, and aren't interested in correcting your ignorance... sure, sure it does
Youtube is using a byzantine set of rules to pull a fast one regarding the thin line of being protected by the same rules which wouldn't allow a phone company to refuse a consumer from using it's 'platform' to make a phone call for emergency services while reciting Mein Kampf at the same time. It's currently getting debated as to what a 'Tech company' and how they use their 'platform' will evolve in the coming years, but I don't think it will survive a good hard look at it if and when Congress does a deep dive on these tech giants, of which Google (Alphabet) has with Youtube regarding a monopoly.

Recent article from the not conservative Atlantic discussing it a couple months ago:

Pretending there isn't a problem and it isn't being noticed is ignorance.

Pretending this forum hasn't hashed out the ins and outs of it is silly.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,165
31,807
1,170
Here’s YouTube owned Google at work.

 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
Censorship of opposing points of view.

Who knew such hamfisted blatantly self-serving manipulation of markets for personal monetary gain and political influence and power-mongering (again for monetary gain) could be so ethically dubious.
 
Last edited:

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,092
544
1,605
USA
Youtube is using a byzantine set of rules to pull a fast one regarding the thin line of being protected by the same rules which wouldn't allow a phone company to refuse a consumer from using it's 'platform' to make a phone call for emergency services while reciting Mein Kampf at the same time.
And this just shows how thoroughly unable to understand the situation you are

Youtube is not equivalent to the phone company in the example you've provided
Your ISP is
Youtube is equivalent to the company you are calling.

Your phone company can't ban you from reciting Mein Kampf to the guy who picks up the phone at Dominos every morning, but Dominos can block your number (and the phone company will even do so for them). A phone analogy is not sufficient here because there are very few phone services that allow multiple people to call in and discuss with one another as a group facilitated by a single company (I'm not even sure if such a thing exists). Even so, if such services did exist, you bet your ass they'd be allowed to disconnect disruptive callers. Much like a radio show is allowed to pull the plug when some douche calls in and tries to jump-start his manifesto (sometimes radio shows do group call, this is probably the closest proxy)

The dissimilarity to the phone model is precisely why new legislation was created to classify internet computer services. New legislation which has worked so far, and which Youtube is following

It's currently getting debated as to what a 'Tech company' and how they use their 'platform' will evolve in the coming years, but I don't think it will survive a good hard look at it if and when Congress does a deep dive on these tech giants, of which Google (Alphabet) has with Youtube regarding a monopoly.
of course it's "currently getting debated", everything is "currently getting debated" somewhere. The issue is nobody has presented any clear solution that fixes the problems with the current solution without introducing a slew of more difficult problems, and it seems we're a long way off from anybody finding one.

Recent article from the not conservative Atlantic discussing it a couple months ago:
Yup, both the right and the left are going after the tech companies for this, for entirely different reasons (as evidenced by this article that wants content removed, the exact opposite position of the OP)
Each wants government control of discourse on social media to their own ends
The current solution is the extremely libertarian solution of allowing each corporation to decide what is allowed, which is actually most analagous to what we see with real life businesses (business can eject you from the premises for being a cunt)

I'm not even saying I prefer what exists to other possible options.
I'm simply pointing out how what currently exists works

Pretending there isn't a problem and it isn't being noticed is ignorance.
oh I agree there's a problem, though I gaurantee I see an entirely different problem than you're seeing

Either way, I did not reply to you to say there is not a problem. I replied to you to make it clear that Youtube is not a "publisher" and is not exercising some form of "special" status

Pretending this forum hasn't hashed out the ins and outs of it is silly.
Which is why I haven't pretended as such. I've corrected ignorance in a dozen of these threads already, and I anticipate a dozen more
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,092
544
1,605
USA
Here’s YouTube owned Google at work.

As fun as it is to wave this flag around as an example of "censorship" gone wrong, you're clearly being disingenuous. This is not an attempt at censorship, and never was. From the sound of it, this was an attempt to stop people from spamming and garbaging up comments sections. People were flagged for spamming the same emoji over and over

You have every right to cry about this, but stop and think about what you are asking for...
If Google removed auto bans for accounts spamming characters constantly, you'd have constant characters spam all across the platform. To the point you wouldn't be able to read any comments, because people who don't like the content would just spam it to ensure no discussion existed. Is that the free speech you're looking for? The one where the company with the most shills/bots gets to control the discussion because they are able to spam all competitors into oblivion? What would be the point from Google's end? Why should they foot the bell to host gigabyets of spam?

So Google auto flags spammers and removes them, assuming that if they are actual accounts, the flagged individual will contact Google and make a case for why they were wronged.

Now I happily agree that's it's pissy of Google to not re-instate these accounts. But, I also understand how customer service at these companies works. My guess is it will take some time for those complaining to get their issue presented to someone who can actually take some time to understand what happened and properly review the issue. You can say they should have reinstated the accounts rate away, but I gaurantee they get 1000s of complaints a day from legit spammers who you absolutely don't want posting

Could Google have humans review every ban before it occurs? Hell no, not with that level of traffic

Heck, I wonder how NeoGaf does it. We also ban spammers. But the traffic here may be light enough for the mod staff to at least vet every spam ban. My guess is they at least use a tool to help them flag spam posters, though. Regardless, they do follow the same mode of operation of ban first and expect to be contacted if in error: "Spam. Please contact the administrator if this was done in error."

So what do you think DeepEnigma DeepEnigma ?
Are you upset that A anasouardini , T TheProLando , W William0381 , F fanat , D Dog second , R RichieSmiley and B barrysingh102 's rights to free speech have been infringed???
Because I guarantee you wouldn't like what becomes of this place if accounts like those are allowed the full spectrum of "free speech"
 

Demacabre

Member
Mar 23, 2015
1,953
1,053
490
www.egregoredesign.com
People can cheerlead a Corporation's right to do this but the words "commercially viable" imply this has nothing to do with hate speech or even politics specifically. And this will come to bite everyone, regardless of their stance, right in the ass.

But please, stan for billionaire corporations and their advertisers over individual content creators. "It's their right to silence anyone for any reason because it's their platform" sounds like pro-corporatist and late stages capitalism to me. Gotta keep those advertisers and shareholders happy.

Also, I am sure Youtube is going to stop when all the "problematic" people are gone...
 
Last edited:

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,575
2,362
615
So, Youtube is heading down the same path as eBay before it. Build audience of the backs of regular internet users, only to screw them over and focus on the big corporate money.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,165
31,807
1,170
I am so glad the left has finally fallen in line with multinationals becoming our authoritarian overlords.
But capitalism bad in the other breath, which allowed them to get to the overreach state they are defending.

"We want regulations, why is Trump removing regulations.... but not for our social media stans. Don't regulate their biases and overstep since their actions our on our side of the fence... for now."
 
Last edited:

OSC

Gold Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,548
684
430
I guess it depends on how we define objectionable, and objectionable to whom, the general public, their whims(in which case the word is inappropriate. edit: more appropriate wording would be for whatever reason, if whims was the intent). Because it clearly doesn't state they can remove any and all content willy nilly, as they do for mere political views.

why don't you start your own global video streaming company if it's so easy"
and your own payment processor and your own bank and your own hosting company. It has been tried, payment processors, banks, and hosting companies have fought against new competitors too.

edit:
Bitchute stands, but it remains to be seen for how long before they see issues.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Gold Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,548
684
430
What special status?
immunity from litigation as a platform, immunity for content they host, special protections put in place for internet companies.
 
Last edited:

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
34,284
1,196
1,295
immunity from litigation as a platform, immunity for content they host, special protections put in place for internet companies.
Oh, I thought the claim was that YouTube specifically had some kind of special status attributed to it.

I read up on Section 230 of the CDA, which I believe is what's being mentioned in regards to the immunity bit, but nothing in there seems to be in violation...
 

OSC

Gold Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,548
684
430
I read up on Section 230 of the CDA, which I believe is what's being mentioned in regards to the immunity bit, but nothing in there seems to be in violation...
i think this is from it
But why put a list of things including the word objectionable, as if objectionable was also content that was somehow contentious too like excessive violence or obscenity.

Why put that list at all, if they could simply write they can remove content for whatever reason and leave it at that. I think the word objectionable is part of that list because it may refer to things that are objectionable to the public at large despite being protected by the first amendment. I mean I take it as objectionable being things not on the list but equally questionable or potentially bad as the other things in the list are.

Otherwise it is carte blanche to be as partisan as desired, and host anything they want and censor anything, basically being publishers with protection not actual open platforms. edit: perhaps that is the intent of the law, but i'd hope it isn't, as it is ridiculous.

edit
dictionary ob·jec·tion·a·ble/əbˈjekSH(ə)nəb(ə)l/
adjective: objectionable
  1. arousing distaste or opposition; unpleasant or offensive.
    "I find his theory objectionable in its racist undertones"
seems it can be taken to mean or otherwise offensive content.
 
Last edited:

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
34,284
1,196
1,295
i think this is from it

But why put a list of things including the word objectionable, as if objectionable was also content that was somehow contentious too like excessive violence or obscenity.

Why put that list at all, if they could simply write they can remove content for whatever reason and leave it at that. I think the word objectionable is part of that list because it may refer to things that are objectionable to the public at large despite being protected by the first amendment.

Otherwise it is carte blanche to be as partisan as desired, and host anything they want and censor anything, basically being publishers with protection not actual open platforms. edit: perhaps that is the intent of the law, but i'd hope it isn't, as it is ridiculous.
What? Of course it is the intent. It's in the Policy section:

(2)
to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
And the part you quoted puts the onus on the provider to determine what their criteria for access restriction is (outside of content that violates federal laws).

You're basically asking that platform holders/service providers be obligated to allow for (not restrict) any and all content that is not in violation of federal law and that would be ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Gold Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,548
684
430
And the part you quoted puts the onus on the provider to determine what their criteria for access restriction is (outside of content that violates federal laws).

You're basically asking that platform holders/service providers be obligated to allow for (not restrict) any and all content that is not in violation of federal law and that would be ridiculous.
yet it puts a list of bad things and ends with the word objectionable, which can be taken to mean other offensive things. There shouldn't be a list at all, it should simply say they can remove content for whatever reason or for no reason. That would be much clearer. A list of bad things ending with removing other offensive things, seems to restrict what can be removed.

Only the listed categories and other similarly offensive content can be removed. Anything else has to be hosted.

edit
Otherwise there is no freedom of exchange, as the companies can be as partisan as they want.
 
Last edited:

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
34,284
1,196
1,295
yet it puts a list of bad things and ends with the word objectionable, which can be taken to mean other offensive things. There shouldn't be a list at all, it should simply say they can remove content for whatever reason or for no reason. That would be much clearer. A list of bad things ending with removing other offensive things, seems to restrict what can be removed.

Only the listed categories and other similarly offensive content can be removed. Anything else has to be hosted.

edit
Otherwise there is no freedom of exchange, as the companies can be as partisan as they want.
I'm sure the language would be somewhat different it if were written today and not in the mid-90s when none of this stuff existed, but "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers.... objectionable..."

Seems pretty clear to me.

I don't know what you're getting at with "companies can be as partisan as they want." but service hosts/platform holders being able to determine their criteria as they see fit (within the confines of the law) is the entire point of all this. If you don't like a site's policy, then go elsewhere. Free market and all that.
 

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
I think it is pretty clear that when a company in charge of media distribution is in a position tantamount to being a monopoly, that it either must lose its position by force, or else its power to control what is conveyed on it.

In this case, it will be all but imposssible to have the government come in and break it up, Ma Bell style.

So it needs to lose its privilege to censor.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
34,284
1,196
1,295
I think it is pretty clear that when a company in charge of media distribution is in a position tantamount to being a monopoly, that it either must lose its position by force, or else its power to control what is conveyed on it.

In this case, it will be all but imposssible to have the government come in and break it up, Ma Bell style.

So it needs to lose its privilege to censor.
I mean, I'm sure there are arguments that Google and YouTube (along with Android) are monopolies, but they need to be tested in the court of law.

Through what legal means would you propose removing their right to restrict what content is hosted or can be accessed on their site?
 
Last edited:

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
I mean, I'm sure there are arguments that Google and YouTube (along with Android) are monopolies, but they need to be tested in the court of law.

Through what legal means would you propose removing their right to restrict what content is hosted or can be accessed on their site?
They are literally the face of their own unique concept of media content creation.

There is no alternative.

They might have created it, but it has grown into quite literally a critical link of modern communications.

It has grown beyond a matter of simple ownership.

It is now common ground, imo.

It needs to be.

Hopefully there will be a ruling.

It isn't even as if they would LOSE any profit from their service for leaving it hands-off (barring actual crimes being committed).

Unless you count being paid to squelch different opinions as just and fair profiteering.

I do not.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,328
7,051
880
What free market? These companies hold monopolies using what essentially is government developed tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FMXVII

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
34,284
1,196
1,295
What free market? These companies hold monopolies using what essentially is government developed tech.
There have been tons and tons of video hosting sites over the years. No one's access is blocked just because the bar has been set so prohibitively high that to enter the scene now would require insane resources.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Gold Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,548
684
430
access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers.... objectionable..."
yet objectionable also means offensive and is in a list along with obscene, lascivious and excessive violence. If it was alone and not part of the list I could understand, but it is part of the list and seems to use the offensive meaning by being so.

In any case laws can be changed, and new legislation can be passed if need be.