My understanding of the situation is simple. YouTube is becoming a battleground and an inflection point over matters of free speech. But YouTube doesn't appear to be constititionally defensive of free speech. So it is and will continue to be inconsistent in its policy towards banning. Not only that, there is the question of a million strings trying to pull copyright nickles and dimes.
So Malkin is in the stew for insulting the permanent outrage of radical Islam on YouTube and the head Tubers are complying with complaints by deactivating her account.
I'm not sure how this might be impacted by the new Google ownership, because you really have to wonder about the extent to which they will defend free speech. But chances are that since Google will have a smarter and surer team of attorneys there will be some better protections for uploaders, the rationale being their contractual prowess will shield users better than that of the YouTube startup folks.
I find myself giving Google the benefit of a lot of doubts because I like most of what they've done technology-wise and I really admire their boldness in offering a second life to the fractional publication value of a great deal of text. This has long been a dream of all of us ex-Xeroids, and the Googleplex can provide the appropriate economies of scale for the future (although I still see room for a half-dozen more players).
When this will really become interesting is when machine language translation becomes viable. It will enable global politics. Until then the viability of free speech online is subject to the bottlenecks of an immature multicultural punditry...
Recent Comments