Still seems like YT's version of "Fair Use" is significantly more constrained than the legal definition.
This is a step in the right direction, but YT's system is extra-judicial in nature, and they've decided to be more copyright holder friendly than the law itself requires (likely so the law isn't used, which is cheaper for YT).
I suspect in my lifetime governments will need to create better frameworks for content networks. The whole "they're a private company, they can do anything!" argument is growing weaker by the day as these companies have more influence in our lives (with both good (e.g. anti-hate content) and bad (e.g. copyright holders stepping on small creators) consequences).
The fact that creators are still required to edit out sound from audio from passing cars is insane. It's a system designed to be a money grab for the music industry, not follow any sort of legal definition of copyright. The idea that a music company could sue someone over a copyright claim for posting a video in which part of a song is fuzzily heard for a few brief moments as a car passes is risible.
Dumb question - when someone films outside in public, why is audio of music from a passing car considered a copyright issue but video of a passerby in a Mickey Mouse t-shirt isn't?
Is it just because one industry lobbies YouTube and the other doesn't, or is copyright law materially different for the two cases?
It's not that the Mickey Mouse shirt isn't, it's just that companies don't go after it (at least on the small scale in public spaces).
Both are fair use. I think it might be lobby stuff and how they are consumed. Great music can transform / enhance a pivotal moment in a movie whereas the presence of an Apple logo or Mickey Mouse shirt, not so much.
Companies can and have sued for licensing fees or if they feel their product logo was shown and misrepresented in film.
Back to the t-shirt example, on the movie/funded production scale, a lot of this is prevented by the wardrobe department making sure extras are not clothed in licensed stuff.
Just because youtube chooses to penalize it, doesn't mean a court would agree its a copyright violation. There is virtually zero chance something that isn't free use 100% in the clear.
The system is a CYA policy for YouTube. It wasn't designed for that. Copyright holders just saw it as an opportunity to abuse a system for some extra cash. The lawsuits would be unlikely to hold up in court.
If labels were forced to actually push these into the court system a lot of people would fold and settle but not everyone... those who actually got in front of a judge would likely win the case, probably even being awarded by the court for the prosecution having filed such a spurious claim.
Right now there is no cost to labels for submitting these AFAIK, there at least appears to be no cost even if the usage would be covered under fair-use.
>The idea that a music company could sue someone over a copyright claim
You can sue for anything. "Its just a car driving by" would usually be a pretty solid defense that youre in the right, both in that its not substantial and doesnt hurt the original work.
Perhaps we need some sort of "cry wolf" doctrine, where you can sue an entity for "suing people too often for spurious reasons" and, if proven (e.g. if 99% of their proposed suits would have been thrown out of court if they had gone to trial), remove their ability to sue others.
I meant "thrown out in preliminary hearing." You can work through 100 preliminary hearings (especially when it's essentially the same suit, just with different subjects) pretty quickly, especially if you parallelize it across a bunch of the judge's analysts.
Along the same lines, if music from passing cars could be heard in the video, how was it not an unauthorized public performance when it occurred in the first place? Why doesn't the music industry go after people who unlawfully distribute their copyrighted material up and down the street at 100 dB?
This sort of event is either strictly incidental, or it's not. Which is it? The copyright industry can't have it both ways, or at least shouldn't be allowed to.
Because the people distributing their copyrighted material up and down the street at 100db don’t have a monetization plan, and, even if they did, don’t have a convenient platform to target.
> This is a step in the right direction, but YT's system is extra-judicial in nature, and they've decided to be more copyright holder friendly than the law itself requires (likely so the law isn't used, which is cheaper for YT).
Bingo. Content ID came out right around the settlement of Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. Even though the courts consistently upheld YouTube's claims, it wasn't exactly a smooth ride and more appeals were coming. I also imagine every other traditional media companies saw the potential and were equally interested in bring lawsuits.
I agree with your assessment: governments need to enact better laws to handle media as it is produced and consumed today. Until then companies of years past will try to suck every dime they can from their competition on their way out.
Could YouTube's handling of copyright be improved? Of course. Do I see systems like Content ID going away without a change in law? Absolutely not.
> Do I see systems like Content ID going away without a change in law? Absolutely not.
Considering the new EU Copyright Directive, especially with Article 17, if anything, the world is moving closer towards CID-like systems than away from it.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/after-more-decade-liti...
"It all started when Lenz posted a YouTube video of her then-toddler-aged son dancing while Prince’s song “Let's Go Crazy” played in the background, and Universal used copyright claims to get the link disabled. We brought the case hoping to get some clarity from the courts on a simple but important issue: can a rightsholder use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to take down an obvious fair use, without consequence?"
It required only a decade of litigation to get it back up.
> I suspect in my lifetime governments will need to create better frameworks for content networks. The whole "they're a private company, they can do anything!" argument is growing weaker by the day as these companies have more influence in our lives
The better solution is to prevent individual private companies from holding so much power in the first place. If the major tech companies weren't allowed to drastically consolidate and push out competition, we wouldn't be in this situation.
> This is a step in the right direction, but YT's system is extra-judicial in nature, and they've decided to be more copyright holder friendly than the law itself requires
Most hosts are more copyright-holder-friendly than the law requires, because of the structural incentives in the law. (Many structure there relationship with content-submitters so that they have no liability risk from an unnecessary takedown, and thereby avoid needing to do anything with the DMCA counter-notice process, which only provides a safe harbor against claims stemming from the takedown.)
>The whole "they're a private company, they can do anything!" argument is growing weaker by the day as these companies have more influence in our lives
This simply isn't true at all, and if fact the opposite is true. The reality is that corporations are becoming ever more powerful, and voters are enabling this with their choices in the voting booths, and electing administrations that very much believe private companies should be able to do whatever they want. It's not getting any better, it's getting worse.
Yep. It's because there isn't actually a legal definition of fair-use. The closest thing we have to a legal definition is the set of four factors typically used in deciding deciding whether the fair-use defense has merit.
Be aware there is no “legal definition” of fair use. There are four factors that would typically be considered together as a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. Which isn’t quite the same thing.
Having private entities, or the government for that matter, control hate content is only a good thing when their definition of hate happens to coincide with your definition of hate. It's all fun and games until one day you discover their definition of hate has expanded to include your beliefs. By then the train is going too fast for you to have any chance of stopping it from squashing you.
That's a fine argument as a reply to a completely different post, than the one you replied to.
You're replying to a post about content networks lacking a legal framework to operate under, by complaining that hate content is currently poorly defined and content networks can do whatever they choose.
Your argument may have merit, or not, but odd place to make it regardless.
I agree this is a tangent we need not go down, but this person is directly responding to this line:
> The whole "they're a private company, they can do anything!" argument is growing weaker by the day as these companies have more influence in our lives (with both good (e.g. anti-hate content) and bad (e.g. copyright holders stepping on small creators) consequences).
I think it's fair to mention that censoring hate speech can indeed be a gray area. For example, there are cases were atheists that were formerly muslims speak out against their former religion, and are subsequently branded (by some, not all) as engaging in hate speech.
It's a gray area because "hate speech" isn't a valid concept. 1A already excepts for inciting violence but that's not what radicalized censorship-extremists mean when they use the term. They specifically mean anything that is not canon to their current worldview.
Absolutely not. It's a major, and valid concern against censorship and is shared by many academics. Here is an article from a professor at Harvard Law
>She insists, however, that the cure of censorship is worse than the disease of hate speech. “Even worse than speech’s potential power to harm individuals and society,” she maintains, “is government’s potential power to do likewise, by enforcing ‘hate speech’ laws. Predictably, this elastic power will be used to silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups.”
Somehow it's always a concern that governments might abuse hate speech laws to "silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups," but it's never a concern that the purpose of hate speech is to do exactly that.
>You either haven't read the literature, or have completely failed to understand it.
So I'm either ignorant or stupid, got it.
>rather than reflexively trying to ban it out of fear, anger, and ignorance
Anyone who wants to ban any form of speech is only reflexively acting out of fear, anger and ignorance. No other possible motive. Got it.
>As with most issues, critical thinking is the missing factor that differentiates those who think "BAN IT, MAKE IT ILLEGAL, ARREST THEM" is always the answer vs actual solving the root of the problem
Ignorant or stupid, fearful, angry, hysterically screaming like children, and incapable of critical thought.
Got it.
An ironclad defense of freedom of speech if ever there was one...
The truth hurts, censorship is almost entirely based on anger, fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. Your comment is so full of fallacies it isn't even worth a reply. I've actually provided sources, and discussion points. You haven't posted any sources, evidence, or arguments beyond: hate speech bad, censorship good. Go ahead and post some pro-censorship sources from any respected author (Mao, Putin, and Mussolini don't count)
>Your comment is so full of fallacies it isn't even worth a reply.
And yet here you are.
>I've actually provided sources, and discussion points.
You provided a book review. For the sake of civility I'm going to assume you've actually read the book.
But since you mentioned it, here are some articles [0,1] claiming that deplatforming actually does work to prevent the spread of hate speech[0] and of course the inevitable HN thread[2].
I actually do sympathize with the free speech position, I just don't believe that unfettered free speech is particularly effective at combating extremism. The web is saturated with arguments against hate speech, fake news and bullshit, yet all of it flourishes, and they flourish most strongly on platforms that censor the least.
I haven't actually seen a credible defense of the premise that the government being able to censor hate speech is worse than the effect of unchecked hate speech itself, that seems to be taken for granted by free speech advocates, it's one of those things you're not allowed to question.
But you're clearly triggered so I won't bother to continue.
Does anybody have a definition of "hate speech" other than "points of view that I disagree with"? And if your definition is going to be something like "encouraging harm against groups of people" can you then point me to a single quote from a "hate speech" site demonstrating this?
> The difference is that the people (and corporations) only have words, while the government has guns.
Well, no. The people have guns too, at least in the US - the extremists certainly do as the recent trend of mass shootings can attest, and the words of extremists are intended to lead to violent action, not simply be debated on internet forums and turned into memes. And the government has speech.
At best you could argue that the defense of absolute free speech is implicitly a defense of extremism and of extremist violence as a necessary lesser evil compared to censorship in any form. A similar argument is sometimes made regarding mass shootings when defending the Second Amendment - that popular gun violence is a price Americans should be willing (even grateful) to pay for the liberty guns theoretically provide. If so, that's an argument I don't necessarily agree with, in either case.
Also interesting how many people want a "discussion" as long as it falls exactly in line with their opinion and if not they'll downvote all of your comments without actually replying or making any points. Ycombinator is becoming more of a redditesque echo chamber daily
If so, that's an argument I don't necessarily agree with, in either case.
Yep, these ideas were as controversial in the day of Socrates as they were in the day of Voltaire and, for that matter, Barry Goldwater ("Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.")
So: no, to answer gamegod's original question, the argument is not going to "die now." S/he is hardly the first or the last to try to wish it away, but that's not going to happen.
Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but it might help with the draconian banning of things like covers of game music, fair use of audio and video clips, instrumentals, etc. I've seen that stuff taken down, and maybe it was due to Content ID, but I question that when the composition of the content is original. I may be in the minority, but I would be glad to have niche fan-created content stick around without seeing messages like "This video was deleted because of a claim by Universal/Nintendo/Disney/Viacom".
I've never understood why companies choose to delete videos rather than just monetize them. I've uploaded videos with copyrighted music, rather than get deleted the owners chose to have ads shown in my video(my channel is unmonetized) and I'm assuming they make money from it.
There are certainly some cases where this makes sense. In the extreme case, suppose someone uploads a full copy of a new movie. It seems unlikely the studio would make up for the revenue from lost ticket sales with just ads. They might be violating contracts with their distributors as well.
Considering how advanced GOOG is at ML, instead of blocking they should just filter out the music instead. You don't even need ML for this if you have the original music piece. This way they can insert themselves as a middleman and act as a marketplace. If the video creator wants to pay for music and music companies wants to profit from it, they can go through Google directly. The two parties don't ever have to even meet each other or know who each other is.
The problem is, in the USA at least, there is a legal right to Fair Use of copyrighted works. Analysis of Fair Use issues is not simple and is impossible to automate. Music companies have been consistently breaking the law with their claims. The law requires them to do a proper Fair Use analysis prior to lodging any complaint under the DMCA. While it might be possible for Google to automate removal of a given scrap of music from a video, and providing that as an option to the music companies as an alternative to blocking the entire video or disabling monetization might be a good idea, it leaves a few problems on the table. Music companies would still be legally obligated to perform proper Fair Use analysis on every single video they do this to. Additionally, there is no such thing as a central copyright registry that Google could use to verify that the people filing the claims have any right. Googles systems can be, and actively are, abused. It's the sort of situation that I imagine Google really dislikes, as the law in this area is basically impossible to automate. So, they will probably just automate destruction of Fair Use because the groups most likely impacted have fewer resources to fight it.
As noted elsewhere, the Content ID system is only there to make sure DMCA and Fair Use doesn't have to get involved since the only way to legally assert your use of a piece is Fair Use is to go to court, which is costly for YouTube if they're pulled into the case.
What makes you so confident? I think the current belief, as decided in Lenz was that the law requires copyright holders to consider fair use before filing a takedown notice:
"The panel held that the DCMA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law."
Lawyers are court officers and are duty bound not to advance frivolous or false claims. They can be charged with barratry for violating their oath in this regard.
Ive never understood fair use to be a right. Fair use is a weakening of right holders rights, a defense that can be used to get a case dismissed, despite copyright infringement having technically occurred.
This was a traditional understanding, but the decision in Lenz is largely based on the conclusion that "fair use" is explicitly an "authorized use", and not just a defense of infringement. Universal made the essentially argument you are making, and the court soundly rejected it:
"We agree with the district court and hold that the statute unambiguously contemplates fair use as a use authorized by the law.
Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law."
In defense of this (among other arguments) they cite portions of the US code that explicitly refer to fair use as a "right":
"See also 17 U.S.C. § 108(f)(4) (“Nothing in this section in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107 . . . .”"
So while your understanding of fair use as merely a defense against infringement may be widely held, and arguably is even the historically accurate position, it doesn't reflect the way that the courts currently interpret the statutes.
Thanks. I hadnt read Lenz and understood it more to be saying its not ok to make bad faith claims you know you will lose.
Now I agree with your interpretation to an extent, however its only the 9th circuit court. Lenz is also odd in that the person claiming fair use is the plaintiff, and the suit itself is that a DMCA claim was frivolous. The video was restored after her counter-notification, and her lawsuit was later.
A DMCA taketdown request is itself not a lawsuit. So my interpretation of the ruling is not that "you cant sue someone" but that you "cant blast out DMCA notices." I read it as an anti-intimidation ruling. It is clear, that it sees fair use as authorized by law, but it also still categorizes fair use as an affirmative defense.
Ergo, fair use gives you a defacto right to not be harassed.
Fair Use is specifically an affirmative defense. Not a defense like self-defense at all. It's not a matter of 'yes I did a bad, but I had a good reason', but 'it is my right to do this, I did nothing wrong'. The other references to Lenz v Universal in this thread established this and it's been upheld in many courts.
The affirm part is you conceding you committed the crime, and then you argue it was justified.
Lenz didnt confirm it was an affirmative defense, they ruled the way they did despite admitting it was an affirmative defense, one that can only procedurally arise after you've been accused of a crime.
I don't know about American fair use, but Canadian fair dealing is explicitly a user's rights. From wiki:
> According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is more than a simple defence; it is an integral part of the Copyright Act of Canada, providing balance between the rights of owners and users.
You very much do need ML for that, because the EQ distribution of the music in a video is going to be completely different from the original, and both volume and EQ distribution will vary even within fractions of a second as the sonic environment changes as objects move.
The only time it's closer to trivial to filter out is when the music has been edited in as an audio track, and no additional filters/EQ have been applied. But even then, subtracting a lossless original will leave funky-sounding audio compression artifacts, a "ghost" of the song left behind.
Youtube already offers the option to either just mute the relevant section, or remove the music only. It's marked as beta and doesn't always work, but it's there.
I'm not sure if ML can solve this problem in a decent way.
For example, let's say most of your voice falls within a range of 120hz to 160hz and there is a guitar playing in the background at various frequencies where a majority of it happens to match your voice's frequency. Now your goal is to cut out the guitar, leaving a pristine copy of your voice.
How would ML or any strategy be able to differentiate a voice or guitar at 140hz?
I deal with a similar problem when recording my voice for video courses in a non-treated room. I have to set up a noise gate to lower the volume of certain frequencies (background computer fans, etc.) until you can't hear them. They tend to give off a low frequency compared to a human voice, but the more loud the fan is relative to my voice requires setting the noise gate to a higher frequency.
If you try to filter too much, then your voice gets cut off for those frequencies and it sounds horrible. It either cuts out entirely or you sound super dirty and metallic since your wave forms are all jaggy instead of smooth lines.
I'm no ML expert but I think this problem would be insanely hard to solve in a way that's high quality. You can bend your voice's frequencies and the frequency of various instruments in a similar way. Then on top of that, there's going to be situations where the singer's voice is going to happen while you're talking. That'll be even harder to separate if you criss-cross frequencies. And on top of that, you might have 2-3 guitars, drums, keyboard, a singer and your voice all hitting the same frequencies. So much overlap!
I'd love to hear the quality of a tool that claims it can remove only the songs out of any audio footage that may include your voice, background voices of other people talking as well as other ambient sound (water falling, people shuffling around, cars honking, etc.). If I were watching someone's vlog I would want to hear the atmosphere of the place. Making it completely mute except for their voice would be extremely weird and unsettling (and still crazy complicated to do I bet).
Most productions use a recording of "room tone" to create a noise print, which is subtracted from the recorded audio to reduce noise. Software such as Adobe Audition have this built in.
A known song could be used as a time-series with a similar effect.
> Most productions use a recording of "room tone" to create a noise print, which is subtracted from the recorded audio to reduce noise. Software such as Adobe Audition have this built in.
Yes, this is what I used to do with REAPER (a digital audio workstation tool). It was even able to do this in soft real time (that's how I recorded my more recent courses) with only 10ms of delay.
But from my understanding it does this by dampening or removing (depending on how aggressive you have it configured) the frequencies of your room or whatever sound you're trying to remove.
A relatively low volume fan hum is pretty easy to remove without distorting the target audio, but if the frequencies start to overlap with varying degrees of volume the whole thing becomes a jumbled mess.
To put this into perspective, the video at the top of https://diveintodocker.com/ used REAPER's noise reduction plugin to remove a pretty loud tower and power supply fan. Even with studio grade headphones at max volume you probably won't notice a hint of hissing or white noise when I'm not speaking, but if you have a trained ear there's a subtle clamping down on the lower end of my voice's range. 99.9999% of people won't notice it, but this is also a best case scenario for removing frequencies (a constant low hum at relatively low volume) that rarely interweaves with my voice's frequency. The whole game changes with multiple instruments and volumes that cut across your range.
You can use ML to optimize for the vocals e.g. like noise cancellation. The upside of this is that you will almost certainly get crystal clear voice output (since 1) you have the known music piece, may not be the exact copy but the signal is there 2) the voice is clear since the music is background music). The only downside is that clear voice is not the same as original voice and it may sound unnatural, but you won't have crackling or any of the other artefacts of traditional filter. This is purely in theory of course, I have not tested it yet.
I'm really looking forward to seeing examples of how it performs in real situations.
Even outside the scope of removing copyright material there's a lot of interesting use cases, like being able to split vocals or instruments from any track so you can practice layering in your own music as a musician (such as playing your own guitar solo over an existing song).
It's what business newspapers do, especially online, as the name serves as a microformat causing the newspaper's CMS to automatically inject ticker information either on-hover or as an embedded aside.
Removing adverse incentives is a step in the right direction! Now, any employee at a copyright holder assigned to send out manual copyright claims will become a cost center. No longer will copyright holders be able to justify such assignments via captured revenue from creators - instead, they will legitimately need to value the cost of the claiming against the actual damages done to the copyright holder made by the sharing of copyrighted music.
On the other hand, there are a lot of music videos on YouTube that copyright holders might have been fine allowing to exist, and now their only option is to nuke them from orbit. Mashups, etc. may suffer. Essentially, this is a move that may reduce spurious claims, but may come at the expense of certain grey-zone expressions.
Content ID content owners have a lot of options when dealing with their content appearing in videos.
For one[0], they can choose "block" - prevents it from showing in some/all countries, "monetize" - takes the videos's revenue (note that there is now revenue sharing so that claims don't always take 100% of the revenue[1]), or "track" - just track the video analytics.
It might be worth it to set up "if 2 minutes or less of my 4 minute song appear in a video, monetize", "if 30 seconds or less is used, just track it", and finally "if the entire video is my song or uses my song in its entirety, block it". Not sure how advanced the Content ID system really is since it's easier to get the Copyright Match Tool than Content ID, but I wouldn't doubt Google's ML had something like "match certainty" copyright holders can use to filter content like mashups and remixes. It's most likely up to the content owners to use this to filter, though, since the entire purpose of Content ID is to help both YouTube and Copyright holders avoid DMCA lawsuits.
This part is a great step for some of the people uploading videos.
Content ID will not catch stuff like a guitar teacher teaching a 30 minute lesson on soloing in E minor Pentatonic and playing 5 notes of a copyrighted song with a totally different tone than the original song.
Manual ID was causing the record company to be able to claim all the revenue for the whole 3 minute lesson as if the whole video was a performance of their whole song.
For the curious ones, this policy change impacts slightly less than 10% of all potential claims (not claims that were made, but could've been made).
Quite large portion of these potential claims are short videos that are being re-uploaded from other platforms, like TikTok and Instagram.
Disclaimer: I run a company that monitors YouTube and other platforms for analytical purposes, some related to copyright. Our system is able to identify segments as short as 0.5 second which allows us to produce this kind of information.
Maybe the fix is to require the submission to include the timestamp start and end. And if there is also copyrighted imagery, that the submission include black boxes around the restricted imagery (for video imagery the would include the timstamp start and end).
Then, the resolution would be to wipe out the original audio and black out any imagery similarly. Thus if a car drives by playing something copyrighted, it would simply cut the audio for a few seconds. No loss of revenue to the original poster. And beyond that, provide the video poster a chance to edit the video without the original sound/images. If they re-upload it with the sound/images still included, then they can have negative consequences for their account. If they re-upload with everything "fixed" then they shall have no negative marks on their permanent record.
They didn't shut it down completely. They only removed the ability to profit from your copyright claims. You're still able to have videos removed or blacklisted for copyright infringement.
I feel the music companies would have been making more if people can use samples of songs in the first place -- as most would promote the music and people would buy or listen to them if they really love them. But since they take down everything, no would dare to use music due to fear. It's ridiculous.
"However, YouTube expects that by removing the option to monetize these sorts of videos themselves, some copyright holders will instead just leave them alone."
I've had multiple videos ContentIDed for years now, off and on, by certain 'copyright holders'.
The infringing 'works' are white noise.
Literally. I make open source software plugins and use Logic's signal generator sometimes to demonstrate the spectral content of these plugins. I'll get copyright strikes specifically for the purpose of hijacking the ad revenue of these videos, specifying that it's the noise (or filtered noise) content of the video.
They don't try to knock the video off YouTube, they are trying to mass claim all white noise on the platform to get whatever revenue they can until the real creator reassert their rights to their original content (at some risk: you are saying 'no, that is original content' to the YouTube machine and depending on the adversary to withdraw their claim in hopes of finding someone who is paying less attention)
This would directly affect those trolls, and those guys would indeed skulk away: it's what they do when you challenge them, because they want to operate without calling attention to themselves.
There is no incentive to block an infringing video. The presence of the sound is accidental anyways and does not damage the claimants revenue (it is not a replacement good). So the claimant wont directly (video revenue) or indirectly earn money from these claims.
I really just don't see how YouTube can support this argument. A car passing buy is playing a song and that sound bite ends up in a creators video and therefor what exactly? What exactly are they claiming that means? That it was the song bite and not the content of the video that's earning the creator money? Aside from polling every person who watched the video how could they possibly justify that conclusion?
This is a step in the right direction, but YT's system is extra-judicial in nature, and they've decided to be more copyright holder friendly than the law itself requires (likely so the law isn't used, which is cheaper for YT).
I suspect in my lifetime governments will need to create better frameworks for content networks. The whole "they're a private company, they can do anything!" argument is growing weaker by the day as these companies have more influence in our lives (with both good (e.g. anti-hate content) and bad (e.g. copyright holders stepping on small creators) consequences).