This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment that does a great job at summing up much of the content moderation question:
The real problem is not that YouTube is too big to fix, but rather that the Human race is too large to moderate.
Perhaps, but the difference between Huawei and a patent troll is that Huawei actually makes things.
Nice of Senator Rubio to notice that our patent system is rife with abuse. Maybe try and fix that, instead of singling out one specific company that’s abusing it.
So they break Google up…
…and what do we get. A separate search engine company. A separate video platform company. A separate email company. A separate whatever else Google did company.
Assuming YouTube gets to keep their name and users continue to upload at the same rate, how does that fix the problem of moderating YouTube?
So what other excuses can the haters come up with to break up Google, or for that matter any of the other large tech companies (excluding telecom and cable and other ISP companies, we have plenty of excuses to break them up).
‘Now go away or we shall taunt you a second time.’
With all the bad news on a regular basis, nice to see a good legal ruling for once. I imagine it will be promptly ignored and/or spun by the usual tools here and elsewhere, but given how explicit the ruling is that platforms can indeed engage in moderation and/or choose who to allow their platform, and that simple involvement with the government doesn’t change that, they’re going to have quite the uphill battle there arguing against property rights, the first amendment, and now a ruling by the US Supreme Court.
As an added bonus if they’re willing to make such a strong stance in this ruling I’d imagine any attempt to enforce ‘political equality’ on online platforms would face a similar fate, such that any attempt to undermine or re-write 230 along those lines would be DOA and nothing but PR(which is not to say that the politicians wouldn’t do it, just that the damage would likely not be too bad before it was struck down).
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is another anonymous commenter who, upon seeing the assertion that correct spelling isn’t open to interpretation, couldn’t resist the opportunity for a good old fashioned swipe at American English:
Actually, correct English spelling leaves plenty of room for interpretation… as the Americans haven’t managed it since 1776.
God Save The Queen!
In second place, we’ve got Gary putting the SCOTUS ruling about public spaces in language one can only hope a certain commenter will understand:
Long read, thanks for the rundown Mike. Interesting that they explained to cover beyond the MMN.
Thus it is now Common Law that YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are not public spaces.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from AgonizingFury about Caterpillar’s trademark attack on a coffee company:
I don’t know why everyone is upset about this. This could be very serious business.
I drive a caterpillar Hi-Lo for work. Imagine how badly I could be injured if I tried to pick up a 2000 pound pallet with my coffee cup because I was confused by confusing branding!
Please stop hating on caterpillar for trying to ensure that the users of their products are fully informed of exactly what they are using and keeping them safe.
And finally, we’ve got an anonymous commenter who saw the words “US policymakers can’t seem to think more than a single move ahead” and, in them, another irresistible opportunity:
I find this statement extremely surprising. I didn’t think our policy makers could think at all.
That’s all for this week, folks!