Scrutable

YouTube absolutely should be (in my opinion) considered to be a publisher.

plodder wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 2:56 pm YouTube absolutely should be (in my opinion) considered to be a publisher.

It isn't one though, however much you want it to be.

Err I made it very very clear I was talking about should be rather than is.

This looks to be genuine.

https://muskmessages.com/d/34.html

Elon's iMessages
The messages are taken from public records and filings from Elon Musk's upcoming court case with Twitter. They were interpreted by AI. We've aimed to be as accurate as possible, but we can't guarantee accuracy or validity. Some documents were redacted, so our AI got confused and made mistakes. Don't take these as fact without your own proof.

I checked with a few of them and they were what was said but I haven't checked all of them

plodder wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 4:13 pm Err I made it very very clear I was talking about should be rather than is.

If you want to make YouTube a publisher, then you also want to make Virgin Media a publisher, AT&T a publisher, Scrutable a publisher and Twitter a publisher. Because YouTube does with videos exactly what Twitter and your ISP do with text and Internet traffic of all kinds.

Doing so would send every ISP under and every backbone Internet company under.

Proof that Twitter is dying:

https://twitter.com/mistydemeo/status/1 ... jrBYA&s=19

dril is making plans to leave.

dyqik wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:16 pm Proof that Twitter is dying:

https://twitter.com/mistydemeo/status/1 ... jrBYA&s=19

dril is making plans to leave.

Im too old for the modern world

dyqik wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 7:31 pm

plodder wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 4:13 pm Err I made it very very clear I was talking about should be rather than is.

If you want to make YouTube a publisher, then you also want to make Virgin Media a publisher, AT&T a publisher, Scrutable a publisher and Twitter a publisher. Because YouTube does with videos exactly what Twitter and your ISP do with text and Internet traffic of all kinds.

Doing so would send every ISP under and every backbone Internet company under.

In a narrower sense than the straw man you’re arguing against, yes

Its the adverts that make youtube a publisher.

plodder wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:54 pm

dyqik wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 7:31 pm

plodder wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 4:13 pm Err I made it very very clear I was talking about should be rather than is.

If you want to make YouTube a publisher, then you also want to make Virgin Media a publisher, AT&T a publisher, Scrutable a publisher and Twitter a publisher. Because YouTube does with videos exactly what Twitter and your ISP do with text and Internet traffic of all kinds.

Doing so would send every ISP under and every backbone Internet company under.

In a narrower sense than the straw man you’re arguing against, yes

How do you propose to write a law that can withstand judicial review that only affects YouTube?

It's a fundamental principle of the rule of law that laws apply equally to all people/companies. YouTube doesn't do anything with data and user generated content that is different to Twitter, TikTok, or here, or even that is different to a ISP proxy server or to a basic data server operation.

noggins wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 10:18 pm Its the adverts that make youtube a publisher.

No, it's not. If we put ads on this site, we are still not the publisher of your posts. If YouTube overlays ads on a video, it does not become the publisher of that video.

If a supermarket puts a special offer ad in front of a copy of the Daily Mail on its shelf, it does not become the publisher of the Daily Mail.

Twitter/YouTube/Facebook etc… actively curate their feeds with a range of techniques to further their own commercial ends. They chose what to show to you in a very different way to Scrutable or an ISP, who just show you the things you’ve asked to see. I’m not sure what to call what they do, but that curation makes them more than a passive agent just serving content up.

bjn wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 11:21 pm Twitter/YouTube/Facebook etc… actively curate their feeds with a range of techniques to further their own commercial ends. They chose what to show to you in a very different way to Scrutable or an ISP, who just show you the things you’ve asked to see. I’m not sure what to call what they do, but that curation makes them more than a passive agent just serving content up.

No, that's not how the law or the tech works, or can work. Scrutable removes stuff and has a moderation team, and ISPs block certain things. YouTube, Twitter etc. do not manually curate their feeds.

Seriously, is it too much to expect people here to actually research the huge amount of public information about how things work and how the law works?

I know they stay within section 230 as written. I’m pointing out that what most social media do is different in nature. Moderation of a forum (ie refusing to distribute certain things at all) is somewhat different to actively promoting one thing over another within your media. I click on a scrutable forum and I don’t get random other sh.t appearing in my view of that forum to drive engagement.

People are starting to say Elon Musk isn't actually a real engineer. But he definitely said "I don't know why people think Twitter is so complicated. I could fix it in like a weekend." And then proceeded to f.ck everything up. That's exactly like an engineer.

https://twitter.com/polotek/status/1591 ... HRVRiG8hIw

Several engineers in my family. Can completely relate.

bjn wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 6:26 am I know they stay within section 230 as written. I’m pointing out that what most social media do is different in nature. Moderation of a forum (ie refusing to distribute certain things at all) is somewhat different to actively promoting one thing over another within your media. I click on a scrutable forum and I don’t get random other sh.t appearing in my view of that forum to drive engagement.

Similarly Scrutable doesn’t generate a preposterous income for its billionaire owner that is fundamentally reliant on the drivel we post.

dyqik wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:59 am

bjn wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 11:21 pm Twitter/YouTube/Facebook etc… actively curate their feeds with a range of techniques to further their own commercial ends. They chose what to show to you in a very different way to Scrutable or an ISP, who just show you the things you’ve asked to see. I’m not sure what to call what they do, but that curation makes them more than a passive agent just serving content up.

No, that's not how the law or the tech works, or can work. Scrutable removes stuff and has a moderation team, and ISPs block certain things. YouTube, Twitter etc. do not manually curate their feeds.

Seriously, is it too much to expect people here to actually research the huge amount of public information about how things work and how the law works?

I think you’re getting very tangled in the weeds of how social media presents itself and how it is currently mostly free of regulation, rather than allowing yourself to take a broader view.

AFAICT the key difference here is
1) an employee of the company decides what content should be posted in advance, and commissions it, with adverts alongside, versus
2) users can post whatever they like, with employees of the company engaging in post-hoc curation to promote/censor content, with adverts alongside.

It's clearly a different process, but I'm not sure it's necessarily so clear that the regulatory and ethical considerations are entirely different too.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:41 am AFAICT the key difference here is
1) an employee of the company decides what content should be posted in advance, and commissions it, with adverts alongside, versus
2) users can post whatever they like, with employees of the company engaging in post-hoc curation to promote/censor content, with adverts alongside.

It's clearly a different process, but I'm not sure it's necessarily so clear that the regulatory and ethical considerations are entirely different too.

If a user on a social media site posts something illegal, should the owners of the site go to jail?

If a user on a social media site posts something defamatory, should the owners of the site pay compensation?

It's fairly clear why laws like section 230 exist. Without them, the risk of hosting a site where users can post would simply be too great.

That said, I agree with the idea that it doesn't complete absolve the owners of the site from responsibility. Facebook's failure to employ moderators who speak the right language for where they were operating contributed to ethnic cleansing, and I'm sure we all agree that owners of websites should immediately remove child abuse images and report those posting them to the relevant authorities, to give a couple of examples.

EACLucifer wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:06 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:41 am AFAICT the key difference here is
1) an employee of the company decides what content should be posted in advance, and commissions it, with adverts alongside, versus
2) users can post whatever they like, with employees of the company engaging in post-hoc curation to promote/censor content, with adverts alongside.

It's clearly a different process, but I'm not sure it's necessarily so clear that the regulatory and ethical considerations are entirely different too.

If a user on a social media site posts something illegal, should the owners of the site go to jail?

If a user on a social media site posts something defamatory, should the owners of the site pay compensation?

You’re presenting these as rhetorical questions but it’s not clear why you think the answer is no to each. I think each is somewhere between “maybe” and “yes”.

plodder wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:45 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:06 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 11:41 am AFAICT the key difference here is
1) an employee of the company decides what content should be posted in advance, and commissions it, with adverts alongside, versus
2) users can post whatever they like, with employees of the company engaging in post-hoc curation to promote/censor content, with adverts alongside.

It's clearly a different process, but I'm not sure it's necessarily so clear that the regulatory and ethical considerations are entirely different too.

If a user on a social media site posts something illegal, should the owners of the site go to jail?

If a user on a social media site posts something defamatory, should the owners of the site pay compensation?

You’re presenting these as rhetorical questions but it’s not clear why you think the answer is no to each. I think each is somewhere between “maybe” and “yes”.

Then we have to close this site.

Also, your email service has to close, your website hosting company has to close, and your phone company has to close.

dyqik wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 3:25 pm

plodder wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 2:45 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 12:06 pm

If a user on a social media site posts something illegal, should the owners of the site go to jail?

If a user on a social media site posts something defamatory, should the owners of the site pay compensation?

You’re presenting these as rhetorical questions but it’s not clear why you think the answer is no to each. I think each is somewhere between “maybe” and “yes”.

Then we have to close this site.

Also, your email service has to close, your website hosting company has to close, and your phone company has to close.

This. Because if the answer to the questions I posted is yes, then the outcome is people going to jail for the actions of someone else, actions they may well have not have been at all aware of. Likewise becoming liable for damages for things they did not do. It's an absurd - and inherently unjust - position, but the sort of absurd and unjust position that is really popular with knuckledraggers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Which is not to say that there shouldn't be requirements to take down material that is actually illegal when it is discovered. But the kind of strict liability approach that Plodder and other equally thoughtless people clamour for would mean that, say, the entire Wikimedia foundation would be liable the moment someone posted something to Wikimedia commons.

No justice system should punish people for the actions of others.

what strict liability are you talking about? Stop inventing silliness.

Im coming from a different angle.

In trying to make it impossible to run an unmoderated mass social media site at a profit.

Its the size of twitter etc thats the problem. Smash them.

noggins wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:44 pm Im coming from a different angle.

In trying to make it impossible to run an unmoderated mass social media site at a profit.

Its the size of twitter etc thats the problem. Smash them.

Sure. But you can't do that by legislating liability on everyone who operates a communication medium.