Current legislation is selectively enforced - pointing to a lack of enforcement only weakens your position. There are a lot of major distinguishing differences between HN and Youtube, but one of the most obvious is the way HN has a narrowly tailored scope - it is a platform for a very specific kind of content. You have the direct opposite (originally) for Youtube - unbound scope with narrowly defined no-go zone (illegal and copywrite protected material).
Comments
What you’re suggesting is not in line with current legislation, it’s just mere fantasy.
But if we lived in a world where your fantasy came true, how could any moderated discussion board exist?
These two are the same. HN wouldn’t exist without all the hours put into censorship by dang.
Current legislation is selectively enforced - pointing to a lack of enforcement only weakens your position. There are a lot of major distinguishing differences between HN and Youtube, but one of the most obvious is the way HN has a narrowly tailored scope - it is a platform for a very specific kind of content. You have the direct opposite (originally) for Youtube - unbound scope with narrowly defined no-go zone (illegal and copywrite protected material).
This isn’t about selective enforcement, the current legislation simply does not work the way you would like it to work.
This isn’t true, youtube has a far bigger no-go zone than you suggest.