Repost, cause Discus decided to send my brilliant post to the wrong thread. Fuck Discus, etc.:
I see what Robyn is getting at here with a libel ban, but I can also see why YouTube and other social media sites would be very reluctant to go that route.First of all, as she herself noted, if such a ban is based on the legal definition of libel (in broad strokes), it would miss most of the worst content, as the "victims" are public figures. Not only is the legal bar for libel of a public figure extremely high, but many things that might technically be libellous in that sense still fall under the umbrella of legitimate commentary. If I were to call Trump a pig-fucker, it would not be libel even though I know it's untrue and I said it with obvious malice. It's hyperbole, and thus legitimate political commentary.Second, there's a question of liability for YouTube. Any ban of any kind opens the door for lawsuits, including the kind that a social media corporation probably fears the most: nuisance and other bad-faith suits that are intended to harass and intimidate rather than win. So they do have to be very careful about how they define them. Libel is such a slippery, subjective concept that YouTube's lawyers must be horrified at the notion of enacting a ban based on it.I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy for the giant social media corporations, here. They created this situation for themselves by ignoring the problem for so long. But yeah, it's now a really tough one for them to solve.
Agree. Once you’ve used google earth in VR, and looked around on a random street corner in the middle of Bulgaria, you’ll know what the internet is for.
Someone needs to tell QAnon what the internet is for: https://youtu.be/zBDCq6Q8k2EThey are benefitting from more people having internet access, coupled with more time to spend browsing it (no jerbs), and a global pandemic that some people desperately want to believe is not real/a grand conspiracy. The #saveourchildren thing was a chilling masterstroke. It's even infecting Europe now.
the problem is, all of these stupid videos always say. view now before they ban it, or this is the video tom hanks and george soros don't want you to see. if you actually do ban it, they'll just think they must be on to something
As an adjunct to this subject, here is a video explaining what can happen when people listen to evil, callous, coldhearted social media BULLSHIT. This woman got in a tight spot, panicked, then listened to FUCKING ASSHOLES who fed her venom and urged her to be evil, too.
Yes, it's about a dog. Yes, it's extremely sad. Yes, YOU SHOULD WATCH IT.
Because this fucking nonsense can come at you in a LOT of ways, and you might not realize how you're being used. So get out your fucking hankies and watch this shit.
That is the worst excuse for not banning something. I hope they're not thinking that way. We might as well not have any rules, because OMG someone might think they're right to, say, break the law.
*ahem* That is why the copyright system on YT is so utterly fucked up. They take down shit all the time that DOESN'T violate copyright, and then it's on the uploaders to take days or weeks trying to repair the damage. They could just as easily do THIS by robot, and make the fucking MORONS take days or weeks to deal with it. But they don't want to. Why would that be, I wonder?
So many dick jokes.
Not as good as the original:https://www.imdb.com/title/...
Repost, cause Discus decided to send my brilliant post to the wrong thread. Fuck Discus, etc.:
I see what Robyn is getting at here with a libel ban, but I can also see why YouTube and other social media sites would be very reluctant to go that route.First of all, as she herself noted, if such a ban is based on the legal definition of libel (in broad strokes), it would miss most of the worst content, as the "victims" are public figures. Not only is the legal bar for libel of a public figure extremely high, but many things that might technically be libellous in that sense still fall under the umbrella of legitimate commentary. If I were to call Trump a pig-fucker, it would not be libel even though I know it's untrue and I said it with obvious malice. It's hyperbole, and thus legitimate political commentary.Second, there's a question of liability for YouTube. Any ban of any kind opens the door for lawsuits, including the kind that a social media corporation probably fears the most: nuisance and other bad-faith suits that are intended to harass and intimidate rather than win. So they do have to be very careful about how they define them. Libel is such a slippery, subjective concept that YouTube's lawyers must be horrified at the notion of enacting a ban based on it.I'm not feeling a lot of sympathy for the giant social media corporations, here. They created this situation for themselves by ignoring the problem for so long. But yeah, it's now a really tough one for them to solve.
Agree. Once you’ve used google earth in VR, and looked around on a random street corner in the middle of Bulgaria, you’ll know what the internet is for.
Except that the National Enquirer is pushing it so hard that they obviously think he’s still President and should be impeached again.
And this is all for naught unless the British crown is returned to the house of Stuart.
I guess. I was thinking on this, and I got no other answer.
If they remove all the YouTube videos, how will people do the research?
Someone needs to tell QAnon what the internet is for: https://youtu.be/zBDCq6Q8k2EThey are benefitting from more people having internet access, coupled with more time to spend browsing it (no jerbs), and a global pandemic that some people desperately want to believe is not real/a grand conspiracy. The #saveourchildren thing was a chilling masterstroke. It's even infecting Europe now.
the problem is, all of these stupid videos always say. view now before they ban it, or this is the video tom hanks and george soros don't want you to see. if you actually do ban it, they'll just think they must be on to something
Can't they just flock to Parler or 8kun or something like that? It would decrease bandwidth and make them easier to monitor.
If only proper grammar...
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
As an adjunct to this subject, here is a video explaining what can happen when people listen to evil, callous, coldhearted social media BULLSHIT. This woman got in a tight spot, panicked, then listened to FUCKING ASSHOLES who fed her venom and urged her to be evil, too.
Yes, it's about a dog. Yes, it's extremely sad. Yes, YOU SHOULD WATCH IT.
Because this fucking nonsense can come at you in a LOT of ways, and you might not realize how you're being used. So get out your fucking hankies and watch this shit.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
That is the worst excuse for not banning something. I hope they're not thinking that way. We might as well not have any rules, because OMG someone might think they're right to, say, break the law.
They might have to rely on actual research! OH THE INCONVENIENCE! :D
That's all easily done by robot.
*ahem* That is why the copyright system on YT is so utterly fucked up. They take down shit all the time that DOESN'T violate copyright, and then it's on the uploaders to take days or weeks trying to repair the damage. They could just as easily do THIS by robot, and make the fucking MORONS take days or weeks to deal with it. But they don't want to. Why would that be, I wonder?