YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio... by briandear on Thursday December 10, 2020 @12:42AM (#25370218)

True. However YouTube isn’t a publisher, according to them. They want the Section 203 exemption, but they are acting as a publisher. If they want to be indemnified from libel liability, they can’t pick and choose what to publish as that is a tacit endorsement of what does get published. They can have it both ways.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio... by triceratops on Thursday December 10, 2020 @01:29AM (#25370494)

> They want the Section 203 exemption, but they are acting as a publisher

You keep saying this over and over but you're wrong.

According to Section 230 they're allowed to "censor" all they want. It doesn't make them a publisher. That's literally the point of Section 230.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio... by downandout on Thursday December 10, 2020 @08:49AM (#25373639)

The are allowed to censor in good faith. That generally means that they need to follow their own guidelines, which does not appear to have happened in this case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio... by triceratops on Thursday December 10, 2020 @02:55PM (#25377774)

"Good faith" can mean anything at all. And you should be thankful Section 230 exists. If everyone and his dog could sue a company for libelous content posted by a user, you know what would happen? More moderation, real name requirements, and "censorship".

[ Parent | on HN ]