Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TameAntelope 1706 days ago
YouTube hosting the art. YouTube gets to decide what YouTube shows to its users.
1 comments

So they are they a publisher?
No? They're a platform, the artist is the publisher.
A publishing house publishes a book that an author writes.

Digital platforms want to have it both ways - they want to (in some cases manually!!!) curate and censor recommendations, search results, and plain uploads, while also retaining their platform protections.

The libertarian stance on this issue is completely untenable. I know an Olympic gymnast who can’t perform gymnastics that well.

This isn't really about section 230, this is about the first amendment. You cannot, and will not, ever successfully pass an enforced law that requires private companies to maintain content they themselves did not produce on their website against their will.

You can repeal section 230, and the first amendment will still protect every company in the US from doing what you want them to do. There is no version of this where you win, and anti-vax or overtly hateful/conservative content sticks around on YouTube.

The point of repealing section 230 is to end YouTube as we know it. Basically, YouTube becomes the Washington Post and can carry fully moderated content that it selects and publishes. YouTube's current business model only exists by legislative fiat. It's time to give power back to the courts and reinstate the precedent of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

Literally impossible as long as the First Amendment exists. You cannot compel speech with legislation the way you apparently want to. Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation, the First Amendment is ultimately the protector of YouTube, and will remain so as long as the United States remains a country.

Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Court, who would then rule it as unconstitutional to force YouTube to publish content it doesn't want to, and we'll be right back where we started, just now with precedent in a Supreme Court case.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-am...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-sec...

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-...

You are tilting at a windmill, friend.

The libertarian stance would be to repeal CDA 230. I don't know any libertarians that prefer statutory law to common law.

"Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems."

YouTube makes opinionated decisions about what gets in their search results. They edit their search results and have a team that decides that goes on the front page. That's editing. YouTube is a publisher.
Nope! None of that is relevant, even remotely, in determining what a publisher is. YouTube is a platform.
Please explain. All you said said was “I disagree”.