Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think we're going to find common understanding on this but I appreciate you taking the time to at least think about the actual consequences. I happen to disagree with your assessments.

> The needless extra liability either breaks the business model

We can agree, I hope, that if I had a shared image host then I should at least pay the cost to ensure no child pornography, snuff or whatever other common horrible images we can agree on are removed. I hope we can both agree that such expense might be impossible for some business models but that such expense isn't needless. We can probably also agree that Section 230 likely won't protect me from 3 letter government agencies insisting I remove classified content, even if my own morals would allow such content.

So yes, I'm asking for /extra/ liability but we can disagree on what is or is not needless.

> You're also far too focused on sites you seem to dislike

It may seem that way since I am arguing that Section 230 may be the seed from which they grew. I'm arguing that allowing single entities to re-publish volumes of content beyond their means to moderate may be bad at it's core. Perhaps we should limit everyones ability to post unlimited and unmoderated content. That includes me. So I can't just put a blank billboard in front of my house, allow anyone to write any slanderous thing on it and then shrug and say "Section 230" when the neighbors complain.

On the topic of Stack Overflow, I wonder if they have taken down clearly false and libelous claims. Same with Wikipedia. I doubt either have a clean record either way.

> But I do know there's some YouTube channels I really enjoy that wouldn't exist without YouTube as a platform.

I want to take the time to descend into my own hyperbole just for rhetorical effect. Lots of the world was made better in small ways by tremendously horrific practices. I love Youtube and I watch it every single day. Careers have been born on it and a small number of millionaires. Does that mean that a single company controlling something like 90% of the personally created videos on the Internet is a good thing? For every Youtuber you like, how many of sufficient value have been buried by Youtube's algorithm?

Have you ever read the "Wikipedia has cancer" post [1]? When you really look deeply at what we think we are protecting ... are you sure it is what you think it is?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills as the nerds of the world seem to be cheering on the bullies as they steal, repackage and profit off of the user generated content of others. And when someone suggests that as a price they should at least be held responsible for the worst of the content they republish then everyone acts shocked, like how can these billionaires possibly manage all that.

What I'm saying is: if they can't manage it then they should stop. And if you can't figure out how to do it then you shouldn't even start.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_C...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: