YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
-
Quote:
a reminder that the company doesn’t have to keep any video up that it doesn’t want to.
:doh: :doh: :doh: Is it really needed to explain that? People is dumber as I thought :sigh: :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Quote:
a reminder that the company doesn’t have to keep any video up that it doesn’t want to.
:doh: :doh: :doh: Is it really needed to explain that? People is dumber as I thought :sigh: :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
I saw a raging argument between two people online about this very area. Believe it or not, there are people who think they have a 'right' to post content/videos on a site. I think sometimes a sense of entitlement can overpower any potential for rational thinking.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Quote:
a reminder that the company doesn’t have to keep any video up that it doesn’t want to.
:doh: :doh: :doh: Is it really needed to explain that? People is dumber as I thought :sigh: :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
The "You" in "YouTube" implies that it is for "You". What YouTube are doing is shifting the balance way from the "You" toward "Me" and this is them laying the groundwork for that. They are going to start removing non-corporate, non-celebrity channels and soon it'll only be Jimmy Kimmel, Will Smith, Conan O'Brien, CNN and so on. They're going to turn into the mainstream media that people flocked to them to avoid.
-
Quote:
a reminder that the company doesn’t have to keep any video up that it doesn’t want to.
:doh: :doh: :doh: Is it really needed to explain that? People is dumber as I thought :sigh: :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
It's really not that simple. The problem is that these "platforms" act as publishers, but don't carry the risk of a publisher. A publisher can be sued for content published on their site, but a platform has protection against being sued, because they are viewed as more of a public utility. This really comes down to free speech. If YouTube is declared as a publisher, then yes, they can discriminate on what content they wish to publish, but can also be sued for said content. If they are declared as a platform or utility, then they do not have that right to deny their service or censor the content.
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid." Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn. Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning. Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
-
It's really not that simple. The problem is that these "platforms" act as publishers, but don't carry the risk of a publisher. A publisher can be sued for content published on their site, but a platform has protection against being sued, because they are viewed as more of a public utility. This really comes down to free speech. If YouTube is declared as a publisher, then yes, they can discriminate on what content they wish to publish, but can also be sued for said content. If they are declared as a platform or utility, then they do not have that right to deny their service or censor the content.
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid." Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn. Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning. Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
Then they should change a little bit the model of making money that they use... because for me, that's not a "service" is a "busines" and as such... and more being from google... they will do as they want, when they want. And anyone thinking another thing is a bit naive.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
I saw a raging argument between two people online about this very area. Believe it or not, there are people who think they have a 'right' to post content/videos on a site. I think sometimes a sense of entitlement can overpower any potential for rational thinking.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
sense of entitlement can overpower any potential for rational thinking
Well Said!
-
It's really not that simple. The problem is that these "platforms" act as publishers, but don't carry the risk of a publisher. A publisher can be sued for content published on their site, but a platform has protection against being sued, because they are viewed as more of a public utility. This really comes down to free speech. If YouTube is declared as a publisher, then yes, they can discriminate on what content they wish to publish, but can also be sued for said content. If they are declared as a platform or utility, then they do not have that right to deny their service or censor the content.
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid." Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn. Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning. Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
Donathan.Hutchings wrote:
If they are declared as a platform or utility, then they do not have that right to deny their service or censor the content.
Even illegal or highly unethical content?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Quote:
a reminder that the company doesn’t have to keep any video up that it doesn’t want to.
:doh: :doh: :doh: Is it really needed to explain that? People is dumber as I thought :sigh: :sigh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
They're just tired of having to answer the hard questions about their content policy. You know, questions, like, "What is your content policy?"
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
