oudated I mean

Youtube was forced to put this system in place for a reason

they were put in court

when Google bought it

and all major content companies glared at the case and got tempted too

so they had to put a system that puts more power on IP owners than the reverse

the problem isn't that they can strike channels

the problem is that there's no punishment for them if they abuse it

you know, we need to stripe that 230 clause out.

make the pick publisher or provider.

or whatever it was

if they want to be a publisher, they get charged for what their users makes. if they chose provider, they need to stop curtailing content.

they shouldn't have the power to be both

I got lost

I have no idea what you mean

section 230 i believe it was, of the communications at or whatever, is what made websites free from litigation for what users post on their site, but doesn't have them fall into the same classification as like a library.

before then, you had, i forgot what term they used, but basically i think like a library, where you couldn't sue the library for what was in the books because they didn't make it. However, a news paper, who doesn't write the articles but does edit them, could be sued.

they were a publisher

Decency In Communications Act, section 230 was the only section that survived a court challenge so it is known only as Section 230

the whole thing came about basically because websites wanted to moderate their users content without being help accountable as a publisher

https://youtu.be/grjZiTN1G5Q?t=142

i skipped to the important part

Also go on Youtube and look up Youtuber Law, he has series of videos talking about all of this

i was gonna look him up, but i knew tim had a video just doing a quick cover

Lior ends up talking about 230 a lot.

basically, a forum was sued for libel. The forum said we are a library, thus are not responsible for what is in our books, the court said "no, you moderate foul language, making you like a newspaper where you are the editor and publisher, your users the article writers"

and through the usual BS we got section 230

which basically said websites have the protections of a platform (library) with the abilities of a publisher

which i think is kinda bs

if we remove section 230, i think we might see big firms remove moderation

because then users could sue facebook for libel and slander, rather than need to go after its users... unless it doesn't moderate

so imagine if youtube could get sued for alex jones. Yeah they could ban him, but then every person who has a beef with another youtuber could sue youtube.

Liberal arts college cringe compilation - day 2

I get the feeling she's implementing these biased algorithms instead of being a victim of them

...that's a woman?

@missdanger "That's a human?" fixed it for you

I'm assuming it started out with a front hole

Not sure if it even has holes now

Definitely one where its brain should be

tf is a "data skeptic"

Math is the final frontier for social justice. They can rewrite history to make it about how the white man only tortured minorities. They can rewrite science because it doesn't include their imaginary genders. They can rewrite language to make it completely PC and make wrongthink impossible.