Moderate English podcasters The Lotus Eaters demonetized by YouTube - Kotaku In Action 2

Moderate English podcasters The Lotus Eaters demonetized by YouTube (www.youtube.com)

posted 3 years ago by Assassin47 3 years ago by Assassin47 +48 / -0

35 comments

35 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (35)

sorted by:

▲ 8 ▼

– TriangleGang 8 points 3 years ago +8 / -0

So here's something fucked up from a lawsuit someone else filed when their videos were demonetized (there are a lot of these lawsuits):

“Plaintiff charges Defendants with wrongfully demonetizing, censoring, restricting and removing his videos. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that removing or restricting postings falls within a publisher’s traditional functions.” Cites to Barnes v. Yahoo; Ebeid v. Facebook; Roommates.com. The court adds that demonetization decisions are analogous to removal decisions, so they too qualify as editorial decisions (“Both fall under the rubric of publishing activities”).

I think it's bullshit to say demonetization is the same as an editorial decision. An editorial decision is about whether to include or exclude content on a site. A demonetization decision leaves the content intact but simply deprives you the financial gain from it. YouTube still gets the traffic and ad revenue even though you don't see a penny.

This is all part of the "websites are publishers when it benefits them, and not when it can be held against them" Section 230 law.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 4 ▼

– WeedleTLiar 4 points 3 years ago +4 / -0

Yep, why in the world does youtube get to make "editorial" decisions at all when they're explicitely not a publisher.

Section 230 is broken as fuck and, frustratingly, the fix is really simple:

If you're a platform, you can't be sued or charged with any content on your site so long as you remove anything illegal (ie a warrant is issued) in a reasonable amount of time. You can't censor, modify, hide, or otherwise discriminate negatively against any content (I'd be find with certain content being "boosted" or "featured"). Further, you are legally liable for your terms of service and can be sued if you either don't apply them fairly or do not adequately explain them or their application (in this case, not providing a specific infringement).

If you're a publisher, you can do whatever the hell you want on your site, but you are legally liable for everything on it.

Done, elect me to congress for more helpful tips.

permalink parent save report block reply