Hacker News Reader

Comment by lysp | Hacker News Reader

I think it also gives them a legal / business remedy if people fail to label their content.

If someone for example makes a political video and fails to label it, they can delete the video/terminate the account for a breach of service.

View on HN

Given the regular stories posted on HN about folks who've had some aspect of their social or other media canceled by any some SaaS company, are these companies having many (legal) qualms as it is about canceling people without providing a good reason for it? Would be nice if they did, though...

I'd much prefer Google cancel capriciously with solid TOS backing to it than without, but I'll complain about their double standards about what they choose to censor... Not regardless, but without a doubt, because Google will choose to selectively enforce this rule.

At the very least it wouldn't be bad for PR if Google bans someone for specifically breaking a clear TOS.

Always gonna be greyzones. Someone with a 60 min video where everything is real except 10 sec of insignificant b-roll footage

but this gives room to also abuse the uncertainty to censor anyone without recourse - by arguing such and such video is "AI" (true or not), they have a plausiblely deniable reason to remove a video.

Power is power - can be used for good or bad. This labelling is a form of power.

This is no different from their existing power. They can already claim that a video contained copyright infringement, and you can only appeal that claim once, or try to sue Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com