If the New York Times misrepresents/misquotes/mischaracterizes me, I have several options: I can rebutt their claims, I can demand a retraction/correction, I can even sue for slander.

Platforms like YouTube can’t misrepresent me because I’m representing myself. As soon as they start “curating” videos, we lose our neutral platform and our much-heralded ability to “all be broadcasters” diminishes.

Today, it’s weeding out fake/old/misleading video from Iran – not much controversy there. But what happens when they start curating video in the runnup to the next American election? Disallowing video based on it’s point of view, perhaps? Fact checking? If someone in Iraq or Afghanistan posts a video claiming that Obama is a muslim jihadist bent on destroying America, does YouTube have a “responsibility” to filter that out while protecting the identity of the sender? Or is our collective responsibility to shout it down?

Would it be a nice gesture for YouTube to curate the Iranian videos right now, as a show of support for the Iranian people? Sure. And they could probably do so without running into Rob Levine’s DCMA concerns (e.g., provide a filtered page, but with links to the full content as well, so anyone can see anything). But are they RESPONSIBLE for doing so? If that argument were ever to take hold, I think the “mass publishing” nature of YouTube as we know it would cease to exist.

Remember- the audience controls the content! We are all broadcasters! Power to the people, and all of that good stuff…

YouTube serves best by providing neutral access to content. The community of viewers serves itself best by providing its own (probably competitive) mechanisms for judging the qualities of that content.

bob wyman

Similarly they don’t know that uploads are being routed through proxies; they know that such proxies exist and they know that material claimed to be from Iran is arriving at YouTube from machines outside the country. The rest is supposition (logical and likely correct supposition, but supposition nonetheless).

I’m still a long way from convinced that Jeff’s assertion that “YouTube has unique knowledge it can add to inform the discussion” stands up.

“Amateur video showed clashes erupting in the southern city of Shiraz and witnesses reported street violence in Isfahan, south of Tehran.
Other footage posted in the hours after the crackdown showed blood pouring from a young woman’s nose and mouth as frantic people tried to help her. Two separate videos of the incident, each shot from a different angle, were uploaded onto the social networking sites Facebook and Youtube. The Youtube video described the location of the incident as Amirabad, central Tehran, and said the woman had been fatally shot.
The Associated Press could not independently verify the content of the video, its location, or the date it was shot.”

And yes, employees of Youtube can certainly decide to practice journalism. Seems like that would best be handled as a separate business to avoid the sort of problems that Rob Levine is pointing out.

You’re both right. On one hand, important and relevant content within a community should be organized and featured (which should be selected by “professionals”), but on the other, it shouldn’t be the community’s host or management selecting it.

What if there was a way for the You Tube community to make newscasts, podcasts, and Harry-Potter-like online newspapers that uses You Tube content?

Better question: How can our existing news businesses do this and make money?

Andy

When I initially caught your tweet, I wasn’t sure if I agreed with the concept of You Tube “curating and featuring” content because it is their “responsibility.” That’s why I asked the question — just because something (a business and platform in this case) is used by a community does that mean its managers are “responsible” to any one or any cause?

I’m still not sure, but there has been some interesting conversation here about the issue.

My gut feeling is that the NYT, Post, Guardian, etc. have the *responsibility* to collect, curate, and feature this kind of content… not You Tube. It is the news companies that SHOULD be doing this. Unfortunately, they can’t afford it and, unfortunately, their business models never have supported and probably never will support this.

You Tube was never founded or built to be a news curator or source. While they have the ability to curate and feature the REALLY IMPORTANT content that does come in, the only ones related to You Tube that have a responsibility to curate/feature it are its users and/or community.

In all seriousness: “What Would Google Do?” If I understood what you have said in your book and blog, they would do what they ARE doing. Providing the platform for the community, indexing and allowing us to search the content, but not imposing their own “features.” We don’t need You Tube to provide us the headlines and a “front page” ala any newspaper.

Thanks for “featuring” my question – not sure if I should be honored, proud, happy, or just plain scared that Jeff Jarvis noticed 140 characters of mine, but I sincerely appreciate the conversation.

Andy

Incidentally, I also NEVER said that I don’t like YouTube. I just pointed out that you don’t understand the law. You decided that since I disagree with you, I must hate the future. Not true.

I think YouTube is fascinating and I think its potential for journalism is significant. I’m merely explaining why YouTube is not doing what you want it to do.

I don’t see that much editorial direction there. The closer YouTube comes to “selection of the material by the service provider,” the more likely it is to lose safe harbor protection. That’s pretty obvious if you read the law -
http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/dmcalaw.htm

>>>“Networks do not have the morals of newspapers”?

Laugh all you want. But you can’t attribute “responsibility” to a video upload site that *by legal definition* cannot have any.

“Networks do not have the morals of newspapers”? Oh, jeesh.

The law I quoted makes this pretty clear. And your post makes it pretty clear that you don’t understand the law. You say, “Isn’t YouTube just a host?” According to YouTube’s legal argument in the Viacom case, IT IS JUST A HOST! If YouTube were to stop acting like “just a host,’ the hundreds of copyright owners whose rights it has infringed would have grounds for a lawsuit.

Networks do not have the morals of newspapers. As you once said to me, welcome to the future.

I wasn’t referring to Section 230 – part of the Communications Decency Act, which wouldn’t rule over copyright, so far as I know – but to “safe harbor” for copyright violations under the *DMCA*. Presumably that would be more of an issue for YouTube, since that’s its defense against Viacom’s lawsuit.

The full text is available here –
http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/dmcalaw.htm -
But one of the qualifications for safe harbor under the law is:
*** the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider ***

You say:
>>>I wish YouTube itself would be curating and featuring video from Iran

Since “curating” (your word) would seem to involve “selection of the material,” I think this could be a potential problem.

“Don’t Be Evil” is a story for little kids and bloggers, Jeff.

The work of verifying, editing, etc. is journalism. I don’t see why Google or Youtube should try to be journalists. In fact, I see a lot of reasons they should avoid being journalists. Let the raw inputs flow and let all of us sort it out. If someone can get paid for sorting it out, more power to them.