I simply asked for more details, so I could respond. IIRC, there was more than one baker case. Hence, which baker case are you referring to.
This is not true. YouTube (and all of the holders of those music copyrights) have essentially given up on music videos.
I’m not having a surgical conversation about it. You asked a question, I gave a response. It never involved anything else.
From the FTC complaint…
On Thursday, Alison’s father Andy Parker filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against Google, YouTube’s owner, alleging that the company’s handling of the content deceives consumers. Since Alison’s death, conspiracy theorists have reposted the video across the platform, presenting outlandish theories that have garnered hundreds of views online.
“These videos have been edited in numerous ways—in almost every case to increase their shock value,” Parker’s complaint says. “Moreover, the users who perpetuate this type of entertainment continue to harass Mr. Parker by discounting his suffering as fake.”
YouTube’s own community guidelines prohibit the proliferation of graphic images depicting violence or death, but many of the videos outlined in Parker’s complaint remain live on the platform.
It is a question of basic human decency.
Perhaps there does need to be revised legislation.
So your comparing violation of copyright law with no violation of any law?
I’m just pointing out hypocrisy in courts decisions…I’ll leaving it to you to decide.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that YouTube should not remove those videos whenever they are found.
The problem is how YouTube works - anyone can just make another account and re-post the videos as soon as they’re taken down.
The basic point is that there will need to be a better resolution mechanism between platforms like YouTube and users who object to content they host.
Sadly it will need to be the government and this appears to fall more to the FCC than the FTC.
Fair enough. I do not believe religious freedoms protected by the 1st, supersedes other established law. (public accommodation, other civil rights laws)
I do think the baker cases were quite frivolous, by both parties involved.
You have not pointed out anything. You have made assertions without evidence.
It’s opinion. You do understand what that means…right?
I’m just asking if you think they been fair across the board concerning first amendment.
That is quite a blanket statement. Can you be more specific? Where do you think they were not fair? If that is your contention.
So the government should decide what is objectionable content?
I’m leaving that for you to decide.
No. They are the arbitrator as it always has been.
I don’t like censorship. I can empathize with a family not wanting a graphic murder video on a mainstream site. It is against their terms and policy so the question becomes are they able to honor these terms. It appears not and that is a legal issue.
YouTube’s terms of service do not create any legal obligations for YouTube in terms of removing videos - any more than this site’s ToS creates legally binding obligations for Sean Hannity.
Forgive me an impertinent question, but doesn’t the very nature of the internet make complete removal an impossible task?
Internet yes. YouTube has been increasing it’s ad content and thus increases it’s responsibility to it’s users and business partners.
If only there was another alternative, that users could switch to…allowing your dollars to vote on your behalf?
With 432,000 hrs (not a typo) of video uploaded daily, and keeping in mind YouTube walks that fine line between censorship and freedom of speech. just what do you propose they do to remove offensive content that they aren’t already doing.
