This has made me wonder,
1) how many people would this really take to review appeals manually?
2) should a publisher be allowed to run a platform that they are unable to curate?
That one is tricky.
My take on it is if they do content dependent advertisement, user behaviour based recommendations and similar then no. They should not.
If they don't have this I'm not sure.
If are based on content which isn't widely publicly available but mostly 1-to-1 or 1-to-n (with a smallish n), then I would argue they should _not be allowed to curate content_. I mean how absurd would it be if Google would delete a file which is not public visible from Drive because it seems inappropriate (yes, sarcasm). What's next they delete files from your android phone or computer when they are deemed inappropriate?!
It should. If these services didn't exist people (more exactly, a fraction thereof) would be hosting the videos themselves, and we'd have even less of a curation. It would be perverse to penalize Google for attempting some moderation rather than just working as a hosting service, which is exactly why section 230 immunizes this kind of imperfect moderation.
And 2) is a really interesting question. The most obvious answer is if you can't manage (curate) a platform, you shouldn't run one.
Absolutely. I’d prefer to see it go back to the old days - where there was no moderation and they had safe harbor.
Of course we shouldn’t permit illegal content but everything else absolutely should be fair game. If you don’t like it then don’t watch it. Someone else might.