Hacker News Reader

Comment by travisoneill1 | Hacker News Reader

I don't think they are as different as you say. Take the example of the NY Times and Youtube. Both accept content from unaffiliated authors, monetize it, and pay the authors. They both apply censorship based on the ideas expressed by those creators (note the recent censorship of Tom Cotton by the NY Times). Why should the NY Times be liable for what it runs but at the same time Youtube avoids this liability?

View on HN

I think my post laid out the response to this clearly: NYTimes has affiliated authors, thus enabling liability. Youtube has promotion at best, more like allowing. The sheer scale of Youtube and the vastness of what is allowed (their monetization system is fucked and needs reform/regulation but that's another matter than liability) makes it clear that youtube is applying policies with large swaths of opinion, not taking any editorial stances beyond what they deem is hate/abuse.

If youtube only allowed centrist opinion vlogs and no other content, you might have a point. They are not even close to comparable to that in a practical world.

Say YT censors after publication, NYT censors before. If you're liable either way, then the first model is just not possible.

Well that brings me back to my first point that on the face of it, the business model seems perfectly reasonable. I brought up Tom Cotton specifically because in that case the NYT moderated after publication like YT, but in any case I don't see why when the moderation is applied should determine liability or lack thereof.

In the real world, when something happens is very important.

Applying moderation before publication is active moderation, so everything that appears is approved by the "publisher." Applying moderation after publication is reactive moderation, so things the publisher disagrees with could get published.

It's like the difference between shooting someone to death and shooting a corpse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com