Normally I would agree with you. But these days when anyone can find support for, as well as buy, almost anything on the Internet our freedom to be imprecise and still responsible has unfortunately diminished significantly. That of course doesn't justify a lot of other comments, or attitudes, people have to deal with when wanting to make something.
our freedom to be imprecise and still responsible has unfortunately diminished significantly
I disagree. The responsibility has and should always remain entirely with the person taking the action. If speaking imprecisely on the Internet is a liability then nobody can speak at all.
Random YouTube maker videos have virtually zero duty of care to their audience.
I say virtually because I could imagine a maliciously crafted video designed to lull a watcher into inadvertently blowing themselves up, but even in the case of a prank video which gives knowingly false/dangerous instructions I’m still not sure of this is something people can or should be held liable for.
If you are handling dangerous chemicals, it is your own personal responsibility to have proper tools, training, and certification to do so safely. Being able to find false information on the internet doesn’t in any way absolve you from the responsibility or shift the blame to someone else.
A moral/legal system which would shift liability to a random YouTube video has a lot of highly undesirable side-effects in terms of stifling free speech, and free exchange of ideas.
It's not really about liability, but whether it's warranted to object. You can say whatever you want, but you can't expect others to not say what they want back unless what you are saying is measured. Objecting to what other people are saying isn't stifling of free speech, it is free speech itself.
Yes, certainly, no one should expect anything they say or write to be beyond reproach or free from criticism. That’s very different from saying they shouldn’t be free to say it in the first place, which is how I (mis-)perceived your initial comment.
Comments
Normally I would agree with you. But these days when anyone can find support for, as well as buy, almost anything on the Internet our freedom to be imprecise and still responsible has unfortunately diminished significantly. That of course doesn't justify a lot of other comments, or attitudes, people have to deal with when wanting to make something.
I disagree. The responsibility has and should always remain entirely with the person taking the action. If speaking imprecisely on the Internet is a liability then nobody can speak at all.
Random YouTube maker videos have virtually zero duty of care to their audience.
I say virtually because I could imagine a maliciously crafted video designed to lull a watcher into inadvertently blowing themselves up, but even in the case of a prank video which gives knowingly false/dangerous instructions I’m still not sure of this is something people can or should be held liable for.
If you are handling dangerous chemicals, it is your own personal responsibility to have proper tools, training, and certification to do so safely. Being able to find false information on the internet doesn’t in any way absolve you from the responsibility or shift the blame to someone else.
A moral/legal system which would shift liability to a random YouTube video has a lot of highly undesirable side-effects in terms of stifling free speech, and free exchange of ideas.
It's not really about liability, but whether it's warranted to object. You can say whatever you want, but you can't expect others to not say what they want back unless what you are saying is measured. Objecting to what other people are saying isn't stifling of free speech, it is free speech itself.
Yes, certainly, no one should expect anything they say or write to be beyond reproach or free from criticism. That’s very different from saying they shouldn’t be free to say it in the first place, which is how I (mis-)perceived your initial comment.