Read on Twitter
This is a helpful thread, for a couple of reasons:
1) @politicalmath is a sharp guy, whom I generally agree with and who is pointing out a real and worsening problem, and
2) His reaction to it (and to Section 230) scares the pants off of me. https://twitter.com/politicalmath/status/1232790848074477568
1) @politicalmath is a sharp guy, whom I generally agree with and who is pointing out a real and worsening problem, and
2) His reaction to it (and to Section 230) scares the pants off of me. https://twitter.com/politicalmath/status/1232790848074477568
The problem, in broad strokes: YouTube is the overwhelmingly popular choice for video streaming, and they have complete legal freedom to say, "I hate everyone with [political opinion X]; they're all kicked off tomorrow." No appeal, no higher power: done.
Is there a better way?
Is there a better way?
Well, you could resolve YouTube as if it was just a public forum: legally declare that anyone can post anything - well, anything protected by the 1A. As with anything else, if you post (say) copyrighted material or child porn, that's not protected. https://twitter.com/politicalmath/status/1232796043772743680
'Course, if you're out on a street corner stripping naked, or distributing sweet NSYNC mix tapes, it's pretty easy for the local cops to pick you up and put a stop to it. That... doesn't scale so well when the problem is "thousands of videos uploaded, every minute, forever."
Do you want YouTube to never pull anything unless specifically ordered to do so by the government? The illegal videos that aren't challenged drown the ones that are in sheer numbers; you've killed copyright and child pornography laws.
Do you say, "Well, it's a 1A-protected public forum, but we'll ask YouTube to proactively enforce porn/copyright laws on that forum?" Cool, but every video they strike down is now a potential 1A lawsuit; it's in their interest to never filter anything. Same problem as above.
Do you make YouTube *liable* for not pre-filtering illegal material? Any new startup can't afford to reliably do that; heck, maybe Google can't. You've killed streaming video. (Not that this is preventing Europe from trying it, as I wrote here.) https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-the-eu-kill-video-streaming-11559774193
Do you say, "Okay, YouTube isn't *actually* a public forum, so you can't make 1A claims against it - but we'll have a government watchdog to ensure there's no political bias in what gets filtered?" You're in good company - that's Josh Hawley's solution. https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-legislation-amend-section-230-immunity-big-tech-companies
Cool. Which party do you trust to assess that question fairly? Are you comfortable with the other party getting to do it instead every four years? To every platform? Forever?
I'm not, especially. You've made internet content *as a whole* a political trophy.
I'm not, especially. You've made internet content *as a whole* a political trophy.
Or do you say, "It's your platform; moderate it how you want. It's in your interest to take down illegal stuff proactively, but you're not liable even if (a) it gets reported first, or (b) you take down stuff that isn't actually illegal?"
That's Section 230.
That's Section 230.
With all its attendant problems! This isn't a good fix - but it might be the least ugly member of an ugly bunch. (See also: republican government, capitalism, etc.)
If there's a better option out there, I'm open to that, but let's hear the whole thing, in detail, *first*.
If there's a better option out there, I'm open to that, but let's hear the whole thing, in detail, *first*.
I wrote about Section 230 here, and I'm probably going to keep periodically yelling about it as long as we're still flirting with giving Donald Trump the power to judge which video bans are "fair." https://www.faithandfreedom.com/internet-bias-is-bad-state-neutrality-is-worse
