• joel_feila@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah i have made that argument before. By pushing content via user recommended lists and auto play YouTube becomes a publisher and meeds to be held accountable

    • hybrid havoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not how it works. Also your use of “becomes a publisher” suggests to me that you are misinformed - as so many people are - that there is some sort of a publisher vs platform distinction in Section 230. There is not.

      • joel_feila@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Oh no i am aware of that distinction. I just think it needs to go away and be replaced.

        Currently sec 230 treats websites as not responsible for user generated content. Example, if I made a video defaming someone I get sued but YouTube is in the clear. But if The New York Times publishes an article defaming someone they get sued not just the writer.

        Why? Because NYT published that article but YouTube just hosts it. This publisher platform distinction is not stated in section 230 but it is part of usa law.

        • hybrid havoc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          This is frankly bizarre. I don’t understand how you can even write that and reasonably think that the platform hosting the hypothetical defamation should have any liability there. Like this is actually a braindead take.