The image viewers will view before clicking your video.Īdd your video to one of your existing playlists, or create a playlist. Note: If the channel has any active strikes, or if the content may be inappropriate to some viewers, the corrections feature won't be available. ![]() When your audience watches your video, a View Corrections info card will appear. ![]() This section should appear after any video chapters. For video attributions, use the following format: įor corrections in your video, add “Correction:” or “Corrections:” then add the timestamp and explanation of your correction. Democrats have also called for reforms on the policy as a way to hold platforms accountable for misinformation and hate speech-closer to what the Supreme Court case aims to do-with President Joe Biden calling for the statute to be “revoked” in a 2020 interview with the New York Times.Info that shows below your video. Google, Republicans have also railed against section 230 in recent years because of what they perceive to be a “bias” that tech companies have against conservatives, and have called for the statute to be reformed to open tech companies up to more legal liability. While unrelated to the specific complaints in Gonzalez v. Current and former YouTube engineers told the Wall Street Journal in 2018 that while YouTube wasn’t consciously trying to recommend extremist content, the platform’s algorithm highlights videos that are “already drawing high traffic and keeping people on the site,” which tend to be “sensationalistic.” Tangent ![]() The Supreme Court decided to take up the case Monday after Justice Clarence Thomas previously suggested the court should weigh in on section 230, saying in 2020 as part of a separate case that when a more “appropriate” one comes up, the justices “should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms.” YouTube has drawn widespread scrutiny for how its algorithm pushes videos related to extremist or partisan topics to users, including misinformation, with a Mozilla Foundation study in July 2021 finding 70% of objectionable videos that participants flagged were found through the platform’s recommendation system. “This Court should not lightly adopt a reading of section 230 that would threaten the basic organizational decisions of the modern internet.” The company has not yet responded to a request for comment on the Supreme Court’s decision Monday. If the court rules that YouTube recommendations can’t be shielded from legal liability, “section 230 would be a dead letter,” Google argued in a court filing to the Supreme Court. harmful materials, and denies redress to victims who could have shown that those recommendations had caused their injuries, or the deaths of their loved ones.” Chief Critic ![]() “Application of section 230 to such recommendations removes all civil liability incentives for interactive computer services to eschew recommending. “Interactive computer services constantly direct such recommendations, in one form or another, at virtually every adult and child in the United States who uses social media,” Gonzelez’s attorneys wrote in his petition to the Supreme Court in the case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |