Again you are arguing for things you like or it seems your needs. YouTube existed before it had an algorithm. You act as if this stuff can’t exist without it’s very predatory ad algorithm. People would also adapt. It’s a poor argument. There are technologies that will come that don’t currently exist and you will adapt to them, but giant corporations can’t?

And you are also arguing we can’t make new laws because content creators would either have to evolve or go away? You know we once had a giant book industry. Most people who worked in them had to find new jobs. We certainly don’t make laws to keep everything static.

I am sure it will go Googles way. They have a massive lobby and billions to spend. That’s not the argument. The fact that your whole argument seems to be that you like where things are is a poor argument. The southerners loved having slaves and change was so hard for them that they literally went to war to try to keep things the way they lived. That’s not a good argument then and it isn’t now. You don’t make laws for selfish wants.

I don’t believe that they couldn’t survive without their current algorithm. Google and Facebook were profitable well before they came up with their current algorithms. Advertisers aren’t just going to disappear. But let’s say they just couldn’t, then they absolutely should go away and let a new company that can figure out how to survive under whatever laws exist. If you have a void someone will find a way to profit off it. You don’t have a viable business if you can only survive with one set of laws. Laws have changed so many times since Americas founding. Adapt.

I never said to ignore everything than safety. I said you don’t make laws based on keep a few companies (that can’t adapt) afloat.

I am not sure I understand your point. You are saying that the lawmakers should consider entertainment value when writing the laws?

First it’s entertainment. How people can just publicly put entertainment over human life’s to me is so odd.

Second why can’t they adapt? We don’t know what the rules would be but we have all these algorithms and machine learning and soon to be AI, but these billion (soon to be trillion) dollar companies can find a way to adapt?

And yes it’s a stupid argument if your point is that corporations that can’t adapt shouldn’t come to an end. Are they also too big too fail? Seriously I want you to make an argument that a company shouldn’t have to adapt to the laws and have them written around the biggest companies.

Again you don’t do this for any other business. You are ardent in your defense because you like one of them. That’s not how laws should be written. Again if they are incapable of adapting then they shouldn’t be in business. And I have yet to see you argue that. Just that they would go away.

We have plenty of history before the internet existed where they caught bad guys. We have plenty of mass shooting with by guys with red flags on the internet that weren’t stopped. The FBI adapting to the times is not an argument that it would worse if it were removed. That’s you speculating. And if we just wanted it to be easier for the government to find bad people we could allow them without a warrant to full access of peoples phones and computers. Laws are made with both idea of freedoms and the ideas of limits in those freedoms.

I am not saying what the laws should be by the way, I am saying that you cannot argue that things must stay the same simply because a company might go out of business or it is harder to track bad people.

Okay add the caveat if you want (it was a take on the other person’s analogy). You think that somehow complete negates the argument?

That’s why it is a grey area. How responsible should they be. What do they need to do? They will need to address it and answer it.

It is also not the job of lawmakers to make sure YouTube is bearable. That’s the worst way to approach a law. If your business can’t adapt to the laws then it should go out of business. It is weird to argue otherwise. Apply it in any business. The safety and well being should come first before entertainment. At least it should in the non-Roman gladiator days.

No it promoted the content. To use your analogy if someone walked into Walgreens and the cashier said hey there is a meeting in the back you should attend (but doesn’t know what the meeting is about). And the person goes back and a bunch of Nazi are trying to convince people to kill Jews and the person organizes with others and does it. It’s a grey area because it has to be determined if Walgreens is at fault for pointing the guy to a group it didn’t know anything about.

And it matters because hate groups have trouble recruiting people in public places but not the internet. The rise of this problem is definitely be use of the internet. And the ability to organize is also made much easier because of the internet. So the question becomes do you allow more freedom at the cost of more death. You may think freedom should always be the case, but their are plenty of times freedom is restricted. From things like nuclear weapons to not allowing people to bring weapons into certain places. The reason to not allow such things is often how people will use them or potential to use them. Again it is not a black and white area.