> Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.
Why is it political? They didn't commission the content or request that it be created and hosted on their platform in any way. They're offering the same reasonable self-hosting process that they offer to anyone who shows up with an email address.
It only seems to become political when you decide to take action and either protect or remove the material. You're now no longer a disinterested third party, you're making editorial decisions and it's hard to believe they've taken this step without considering the impact of those decisions.
The idea that the service is a neutral 3rd party who hosts any video is a political idea, in other words it is a choice made by platforms that both influences and is influenced by politics. Note, because people get confused on here, this doesn't mean that it's a bad idea.
Other publishing media do not have this standard. For example, the radio waves are another medium where the FCC (which regulates them) could say that only certain things are allowed, or they could say you can broadcast whatever you want. (In fact I think they regulate content, re: obscenity, but I don't want to look it up right now.)
So again, the idea of being only a neutral 3rd party who hosts videos for all-comers is a choice, which has political implications.
> For example, the radio waves are another medium where the FCC (which regulates them) could say that only certain things are allowed, or they could say you can broadcast whatever you want.
They can only do so because there is a limited number of them and users cannot share the space, so it must be licensed to be practically useful.
Also, the FCC cannot dictate to a station what it can and cannot air, the FCC can enforce _community standards_ of the community which is being served by that radio station. They're not in a position to go searching for violations and then act upon them, they merely respond to complaints from the communities themselves.
> So again, the idea of being only a neutral 3rd party who hosts videos for all-comers is a choice, which has political implications.
Yes, but the service clearly exists to make money.. not to make a political statement; which I agree may be incidental, but that shouldn't be the basis for interpreting their actions.
> Why is it political? They didn't commission the content or request that it be created and hosted on their platform in any way. They're offering the same reasonable self-hosting process that they offer to anyone who shows up with an email address.
And profiting from it. The scope changes slightly when you realize your business could get sued repeatedly because you promoted misinformation (which is how it would be spun) and someone died because they followed that misinformation.
This is risk, and few of these businesses want to tackle that risk apparently.
It's a testament to how well marketers over the decades have sold the idea that companies care about anything other than their shareholders that people mistake profit-driven motivation for political stances.
Why is it political? They didn't commission the content or request that it be created and hosted on their platform in any way. They're offering the same reasonable self-hosting process that they offer to anyone who shows up with an email address.
It only seems to become political when you decide to take action and either protect or remove the material. You're now no longer a disinterested third party, you're making editorial decisions and it's hard to believe they've taken this step without considering the impact of those decisions.