I am in general agreement with you, but I think there should be a way for internet platforms to ban certain content. YouTube shouldn't be required to host porn (or anything too raunchy) just because it is a platform.

This would almost certainly lead to young kids seeing porn. I know YouTube has age restriction videos but a parent could easily be signed in to their account which allows NSFW material and the next thing you know a 5 year old would be watching porn.

As long as section 230 exists platforms could remove porn, but it sounds like you would be opposed to allowing YouTube (if they are a platform) from removing porn since it is legal?

Maybe “platforms” should be beholden to “public square standards”. You can’t perform sexual conduct in public so it seems reasonable to disallow porn from a publicly accessible digital platform.

Clear rules are a start. If Youtube don't want to host sensitive political content they should ban political/news content entirely and not ad-hoc.

But youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ material (not porn, but still requires you to be signed in and verify your age). Same with eg. reddit.

The problem is a parent might be signed into their Google account and allow their child to watch YouTube without signing out.

The real problem with Youtube towards children isn't the videos explicitly labeled for 18+ though - it never has been.

It's the videos that are specifically geared towards showing up on underage feeds that are. I don't know about you but I'd much rather catch my child watching an R rated movie than them watching a video that is targetting them explicity while using creepy and inappropriate imagery.

Children aren't stupid, they're well aware that there are entire sections of society and human activity that are the exclusive domain of adults and it's completely healthy for them to be curious about that great mystery. The problem is when other adults pray on that natural curiousity for their own malicious motivations.

> The problem is a parent might be signed into their Google account and allow their child to watch YouTube without signing out.

At what point do we force the parents to take responsibility here? It's not a good idea to outsource basic parental responsibilities to an entity that has different goals than you.

would that not be the parent's responsibility then?

this argument reeks of "but think of the children" fallacy.

The parents would have no way of stopping it. If you want to allow child friendly content on YouTube you could not block YouTube on the computer. If YouTube put all nsfw content on nsfw.youtube.com then maybe you could make the argument but the average parent has no clue how to block a domain. I am not making the argument porn should be banned, only that certain platforms should not be required to host it especially if they have a large child audience.

What's the difference between nsfw.youtube.com and pornhub?

And youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ content, where you have to be signed in to see.

>What's the difference between nsfw.youtube.com and pornhub?

There wouldn't be a difference. I would prefer only sfw stuff on YouTube and nsfw on other sites. If YouTube was required to host nsfw content I would prefer on a separate subdomain to make it easier to block.

>And youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ content, where you have to be signed in to see.

Correct. This is an existing issue today, however, since the nsfw content on YouTube is a bit more appropriate than a typical porn site so I am not as concerned. Watching a breast exam or something like that is a bit different than a gang bang.

I would like to see the existing nsfw content migrated off YouTube proper onto nsfw.youtube.com or something like that. It can be a challenge to actually block inappropriate content on YouTube. Allowing porn on YouTube would make it even harder.

(You technically can block nsfw content on YouTube already by creating a cname records in your dns server, but the average person can't really handle that)

So you want your kids to be able to watch youtube without supervision, and you want youtube to be responsible for the contents, and you're not bothered by dangerous DIY videos, "viral pranks", very violent movie trailers, etc., but you're afraid they'll see, how they were created?

Kids should not watch youtube unsupervised, never. I know Elsagate is a conspiracy theory, but those videos are fscking inappropriate, and come as recommended content for kids, and youtube allows that already....

Companies that do business with the US .gov should be req’d to apply 1st amendment rights to their users. Much like public universities who receive taxpayer funding.

> Public universities can kick you out for expressing your 1st amendment right based off of whatever bs reason they want to give just to expel you.

Yeah, and a company can fire you for being black if they give a bs excuse for it too. In both of these cases your rights are being violated and you can sue them for that. What's the alternative? I can't conceive of a system where it's impossible for your rights to be violated; giving legal recourse to the victim seems like the best we can do.

I'm coming from a perspective that the constitution of the united states is nothing but a farce unless you're rich enough to defend your rights in court.

What is the purpose of having "rights" if I have to pay to fight for them? It's not a right then if institutions can trample on them as such.

(When the offense against you is criminal, it [is/may be] the government that foots the bill for prosecuting it. For instance, this is how it works with the Department of Labor when you report wage theft to them.)

What alternative do you propose? That we give up on the concept of rights entirely? Without offering constructive suggestions, it seems like you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.