Social Steven crowder demonetized

[spamking]

AT&T is more akin to the ISP

Except that's not how YT is characterizing themselves is it? They're playing both sides. Trying to get the benefits of a platform and publisher. They need to pick one or the other.

YouTube is more akin to Comedy Central, Foxnews, ESPN, CNN etc...

YT is definitely trying to be. Do those other networks have a lot of independent content creators?

We did have the Fairness Doctrine back in the day but I think it was rightly repealed.

How would that come into play here?

 

[spamking]

You don't even have internet as infrastructure (aka net neutrality) courtesy of Trump and Pai, and you want to compel online video platforms to host all content without restriction (besides legality I assume)?

Net neutrality would be awesome . . . but what I'd like is for YT to decide if it's a platform or publisher. If you YT is a platform (like AT&T) then they wouldn't be liable for 3rd party content. Users would decide what they viewed.

Seems like you're skipping a step there to say the least.

How so? Until YT is labeled as a platform or publisher why would it matter?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Except that's not how YT is characterizing themselves is it? They're playing both sides. Trying to get the benefits of a platform and publisher. They need to pick one or the other.



YT is definitely trying to be. Do those other networks have a lot of independent content creators?



How would that come into play here?

What benefits are they trying to get?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Which is why I said they need to decide what they are . . .



Are you reading what I'm posting here or what? Because it really seems like you're not.



Are you not familiar with Slashdot's moderation? IMO that type moderation would prevent that cesspool. Or at the very least prevent you from being drug into it unless you absolutely wanted to be.



What exactly am I dodging? How much more clearer do I need to be about my opinion on this entire situation?



Users would set their own filters. They can choose to view comments rated on a scale of 1-5. On Slashdot the default is a 3. So most of us won't see comments moderated or ranked at a 3 or below, but you can set this at any number between 1-5.



If they're a platform no. As I've said several times already. Leave it alone and let the users decide for themselves.



Unless they changed their stance this he never actually violated their ToS.

I like the way that slash dot system sounds like it works.

Seems like a perfect solution.

 

[spamking]

What benefits are they trying to get?

They're currently benefiting from immunity provided to platforms via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Which was meant for impartial platforms to prevent them from being held liable for content. Same goes for Facebook, Twitter, etc.

If the platforms are going to start removing content they shouldn't have the protection of Section 230.

 

[spamking]

I like the way that slash dot system sounds like it works.

Seems like a perfect solution.

I think it really works well on that site. They also allow active users to validate moderation to check that comments are up/down voted fairly.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

They're currently benefiting from immunity provided to platforms via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Which was meant for impartial platforms to prevent them from being held liable for content. Same goes for Facebook, Twitter, etc.

If the platforms are going to start removing content they shouldn't have the protection of Section 230.

Thanks.

My gut feeling is to take those protections away. Have to read into them more

 

[all caps]

There is no reason to base it on the first amendment. It is not a first amendment issue. The issue is what does a PRIVATE company have the right to do. The answer is pretty much whatever improves the bottom line.

I dont see how this improves the bottom line though.

UNLESS corporations are paying ransoms to have specific content providers shut down (which is highly likely) all they are doing is myspacing the website. This is all about controlling the message, imo.

 

[franklinstower]

I dont see how this improves the bottom line though.

UNLESS corporations are paying ransoms to have specific content providers shut down (which is highly likely) all they are doing is myspacing the website. This is all about controlling the message, imo.

Im not sure what you mean by the bottom line. If I understand you I would reply that the bottom line does not need improving. These are private companies that have created a product for profit and they can do whatever they want with that product.

Just because people REALLY like the product (and are addicted to it) does not make the designers responsible to run it the way some people want. Especially when MORE want the censoring done anyway.

Also this is NOT a first amendment issue. People don't have the right to say and do whatever they want in private spaces.

 

[WOW]

Lol @ Steven Crowder

 

[spamking]

 

[Ruprecht]

Net neutrality would be awesome . . . but what I'd like is for YT to decide if it's a platform or publisher. If you YT is a platform (like AT&T) then they wouldn't be liable for 3rd party content. Users would decide what they viewed.

Whether or not they are legally liable, they are beholden to their advertisers the same as any commercial broadcasters. They tried a subscription model (youtube red / premium), and it has failed badly.
Their content restrictions are based on their branding and commercial appeal.

How so? Until YT is labeled as a platform or publisher why would it matter?

Because the definition of "platform" you are using is not the typical definition in relation to technology. In terms of legally requiring them to provide access it's akin to calling them vital infrastructure. In technology terms for instance the entire Apple ecosphere is a "platform", and it's always been extremely heavily controlled in terms of both content and technology. "The walled garden".
In defining online video platforms relying on user generated content as vital infrastructure you are ignoring regulation of the actual infrastructure (the internet, PaaS, IaaS etc), in favour of simply regulating the most popular products operating on them.
Also if you applied those regulations to all online video platforms relying on user generated content rather than just the most popular ones, you would create an enormous barrier to entry. At the moment if you wanted to create a competitive online video hosting service for user generated content, you just need to determine your funding model (which usually involves targetting a niche which is currently under served) and you can deploy it on infrastructure such as Amazon S3 and Cloudfront with a pretty minimal expenditure. Requiring open user access and subjecting that access to bureaucratic regulation would destroy that low barrier to entry.
It's not just youtube or vimeo that would be effected either. For a while there "digital free speech" activists were hosting their videos on Pornhub (hardly any content restrictions right?), until Pornhub stamped them down for being incredibly unerotic and interrupting their "business model".

 

[spamking]

Whether or not they are legally liable, they are beholden to their advertisers the same as any commercial broadcasters. They tried a subscription model (youtube red / premium), and it has failed badly.
Their content restrictions are based on their branding and commercial appeal.

In other discussions about this I've advocated for letting the advertisers pick who they want to support . . . I'm sure there are plenty who would want to be associated with Crowder's channel.

Because the definition of "platform" you are using is not the typical definition in relation to technology.

That's not my definition . . . and is pretty commonly used when discussing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

In terms of legally requiring them to provide access it's akin to calling them vital infrastructure.

That's not what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that YT is legally required to do anything. But, if they are a business that is providing a service of hosting videos then they are platform and can be protected by Section 230 as an impartial host. If they're going to decide what is hosted and what isn't then they are a publisher and Section 230 doesn't protect them.

Today they're playing both sides and being protected by Section 230.

In technology terms for instance the entire Apple ecosphere is a "platform", and it's always been extremely heavily controlled in terms of both content and technology. "The walled garden".
In defining online video platforms relying on user generated content as vital infrastructure you are ignoring regulation of the actual infrastructure (the internet, PaaS, IaaS etc), in favour of simply regulating the most popular products operating on them.

I get that . . . and again, the term platform vs publisher aren't my terms.

Also if you applied those regulations to all online video platforms relying on user generated content rather than just the most popular ones, you would create an enormous barrier to entry. At the moment if you wanted to create a competitive online video hosting service for user generated content, you just need to determine your funding model (which usually involves targetting a niche which is currently under served) and you can deploy it on infrastructure such as Amazon S3 and Cloudfront with a pretty minimal expenditure. Requiring open user access and subjecting that access to bureaucratic regulation would destroy that low barrier to entry.

Where did I advocate for bureaucratic regulation? Section 230 PROTECTS platforms from being liable for content uploaded by users.

It's not just youtube or vimeo that would be effected either. For a while there "digital free speech" activists were hosting their videos on Pornhub (hardly any content restrictions right?), until Pornhub stamped them down for being incredibly unerotic and interrupting their "business model".

Is Pornhub a platform or publisher? IMO their business model is as a publisher of porn. So why would removing non-porn videos be related to this Crowder issue?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Which is why I said they need to decide what they are . . .



Are you reading what I'm posting here or what? Because it really seems like you're not.



Are you not familiar with Slashdot's moderation? IMO that type moderation would prevent that cesspool. Or at the very least prevent you from being drug into it unless you absolutely wanted to be.



What exactly am I dodging? How much more clearer do I need to be about my opinion on this entire situation?



Users would set their own filters. They can choose to view comments rated on a scale of 1-5. On Slashdot the default is a 3. So most of us won't see comments moderated or ranked at a 3 or below, but you can set this at any number between 1-5.



If they're a platform no. As I've said several times already. Leave it alone and let the users decide for themselves.



Unless they changed their stance this he never actually violated their ToS.

I don't think merely moderating their site makes them a publisher, that seems ridiculous to me. The actual wording of Section 230 does not say they can't moderate or risk becoming a publisher and the three pronged test judges use does not require that YT remain hands off in the way you are describing.

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to be immune from liability. First, the defendant must be a provider or user of an interactive computer service. Second, the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must view the defendant as the publisher or speaker of the harmful information at issue.Third, the information must be provided by another information content provider. That is, the defendant must not be the information content provider of the harmful information at issue.

I don't see how simply moderating their site makes them a publisher.

And Crowder arguably did violate their community standards which says you shouldn't target someone for their sexual orientation or ethnicity which Crowder appeared to do against Maza. So if anything they were lenient with him as they waited until it was brought to their attention.

 

[Islam Imamate]

We'll pretend like the name isn't "The Young Turks".

There is decades worth of denying the Armenian genocide from Cenk and years worth from his crew. He has held his firm absolute genocide denial position until very recently, where he states he's a "very different person", "not a history scholar", and "will refrain from discussing it further". Never actually apologizing or acknowledging the Armenian genocide at all.

Hard not to call it selectivity here in who is targeted imo.

Have you reported those videos?

 

[Ruprecht]

In other discussions about this I've advocated for letting the advertisers pick who they want to support . . . I'm sure there are plenty who would want to be associated with Crowder's channel.

Youtube also gave advertisers a chance to opt out of the "Brand Safety" restrictions, and it wasn't a viable option for monetisation. They recently regained their massive AT&T advertising deal precisely because of their content crackdown.

That's not my definition . . . and is pretty commonly used when discussing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

That article only uses the term once, and they aren't using it to describe the technology. They are talking about a platform for speech.

That's not what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that YT is legally required to do anything. But, if they are a business that is providing a service of hosting videos then they are platform and can be protected by Section 230 as an impartial host. If they're going to decide what is hosted and what isn't then they are a publisher and Section 230 doesn't protect them.

Today they're playing both sides and being protected by Section 230.

So is every host for public content on the internet. That's never meant you can't enforce terms and conditions or community standards. That's as true for us on Sherdog as it is for Youtube.

I get that . . . and again, the term platform vs publisher aren't my terms.

They also aren't terms which are consistent between international legal frameworks or general and technical usage, hence the application of both in various contexts.

Where did I advocate for bureaucratic regulation? Section 230 PROTECTS platforms from being liable for content uploaded by users.

You've consistently argued that content and it's availability should be controlled by users rather than the providers, that's not going to happen without bureaucratic regulation.

Is Pornhub a platform or publisher? IMO their business model is as a publisher of porn. So why would removing non-porn videos be related to this Crowder issue?

They allow video hosting of user uploaded content in the same way as youtube, and they have removed content they felt harmed their business model in exactly the same way.

 

[spamking]

You've consistently argued that content and it's availability should be controlled by users rather than the providers, that's not going to happen without bureaucratic regulation.

Happens every day on Slashdot.org . . . without bureaucratic regulation.

 

[spamking]

I don't think merely moderating their site makes them a publisher, that seems ridiculous to me. The actual wording of Section 230 does not say they can't moderate or risk becoming a publisher and the three pronged test judges use does not require that YT remain hands off in the way you are describing.

Section 230 is intended for impartial platforms/providers/hosts (whatever word @Ruprecht wants us to use). The second YT removes content they are no longer impartial.

I don't see how simply moderating their site makes them a publisher.

See above.

And Crowder arguably did violate their community standards which says you shouldn't target someone for their sexual orientation or ethnicity which Crowder appeared to do against Maza.

So make the argument that he did . . . only thing Crowder is guilty of is taunting Maza IMO.

So if anything they were lenient with him as they waited until it was brought to their attention.

Yet he still wasn't found to have violated their ToS . . .

 

[Ruprecht]

Happens every day on Slashdot.org . . . without bureaucratic regulation.

No, slashdot.org is moderated in line with their terms and conditions and community guidelines.

 

[spamking]

No, slashdot.org is moderated in line with their terms and conditions and community guidelines.

And users are able to decide for themselves what content they want to view . . . back when I was more active on there I routinely got to validate moderation of comments.

Are you truly against users deciding what we view?