Discussion
Ardern and Labour weren't wrong that the existing system is groaning under its own weight, and leaking at the seams. They were right that it's insufficient for our digital era multimedia reality. So the NatACT First solution - do nothing and blame Labour - isn't really up to snuff either.
So what's a highly polarised 21st century constitutional monarchy to do?
(14/?)
As far as Pat and Chewie are concerned, it seems, they are not a broadcasting company. Which means, by logical deduction, that YouTub would be the broadcasting company legally responsible for BHN.
IANAL but this has implications that are worth exploring.
(2/?)
Under US law, BHN is filed under "User Generated Content" (UGC). Just like anything we post on a fediverse service we don't host ourselves. YouTub and fediverse hosts are shielded from liability for UGC by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act;
I'm not sure that NZ law has a S230 equivalent (help?), but I sure hope we do. NZ is much less litigious than the US. But without an S230 analog, we'd take a huge risk offering accounts on anything hosted onshore.
(3/?)
In any case, the impression I get so far is that BSA is not keen to regulate UGC. That's very good news.
Because if UCG hosts like YouTub were liable for the content of shows like BHN, one of 2 things would happen;
* the never ending law suits would bankrupt them in short order
* they would have to police every detail of every morsel of content posted on them, to make sure its legally safe to broadcast
Which, or course, is why S230 and similar laws exist. To make hosting UCG possible.
(4/?)
The reason BSA consider The Pratform a broadcasting company, subject to their jurisdiction, is because they are. They stream 24/7, they run their own streaming infrastructure (I'd love to know how and where), offer their own branded app, etc.
The Pratform are self-hosting. Unlike BHN and the Bradbury group, they are not UCG hosted by a third party.
(5/?)
One might argue that The Pratform are not liable for the pronouncements of guests they interview, because those are a kind of UGC. But they choose to platform those guests, they conduct the interviews, and they control when they happen, and how long guests get to speak uninterrupted. So ... no, that's still very much *their* content, distributed by their channel, using their infrastructure.
(6/?)
So, let's say disinformation channels like The Pratform or Reality Proof Radio were hosted on YouTub, instead of on their own streaming infrastructure (again, how can they afford this and how it is structured?). Let's say someone wanted to file a formal complaint against one of their hosts, with a neutral body.
As it stands, it seems the BSA wouldn't be an option. Because hosted on YouTub, their shows would count as UCG.
(7/?)
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
