Hacker News Reader

Comment by tombert | Hacker News Reader

Wait, so you're saying that terms of service shouldn't be allowed? What if I make a website that meant to be a "one stop shop to watch dog (and only dog) videos", and people can upload videos of puppies playing around. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to delete the video if someone uploads a video of a cat?

View on HN

I don't know if for everything, but that definitely makes sense for "general purpose" social media like Facebook that has 2.7 billion active users. That's 34% of world population. Probably includes a lot of bots, but still.

You can. But you may not be allowed to delete videos because the dog doesn't agree with your politics.

But those platforms don't advertise themselves as websites to post only one type of speech.

I’m saying we should change it so you have one of two choices for your website:

- let users upload cars, puppies, and funny videos of their kids (video platform; common carrier; immunized from copyright claims, etc)

- accept editorial control, and only post puppy videos, but assume liability for copyright violations (video provider; not common carrier; no immunity)

You’d be allowed to do either of those, but not the case now where you editorialize to just puppy videos but maintain immunity for that content.

As a business owner, you’d have to choose:

Are you a platform for others to host video or a provider of exclusively puppy videos?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com