Social media providers make complex decisions every day when deciding what information to remove and what content is in line with content mediation philosophies. When companies encounter any external content such as fraud, business theft, or even pornographic material that immediately and mysteriously removed from the group. (Zittrain, Faris, Noman, Clark, Tilton, & Morrison-Westphal, 2017).
However, sometimes social media providers, remove the contents based on their interests rather than the rules mentioned. For example, Twitter and Yelp found themselves in the middle of a public uproar because if their actions. In the year 2012, during the Olympics, “Twitter suspended the account of a journalist who was questioning NBC’s coverage of the …show more content…
However, a social media provider must have a place where contentious content owners can raise their concerns about the content to removed. Also, the social media provider should not benefit financially from the offending activity. This creates a particularly big problem for social media platforms that allow users to publish videos, music and photos. In cases of collaborative sites, the user himself creates a page on these sites and publishes what he wants to release, be it a picture, a book or a video. However, the content must comply with the specific terms of these sites. However, when publishing an image or writing, whether for the same user or a third party, permission must be obtained for publication. In the absence of a disclosure permit or the status of other unauthorised applications for the work in question, regardless of users who disclose illegal content, individuals or companies that exploit these collaborative sites, i.e. ISPs, may be prosecuted for improper use of this material. For example, YouTube allows its users to publish music and videos on their platform. That has been pursued by most large media owners because they benefit from views by advertising on the most viewed videos. Although YouTube has strong policies against sharing copyrighted material, some users still violate these
However, sometimes social media providers, remove the contents based on their interests rather than the rules mentioned. For example, Twitter and Yelp found themselves in the middle of a public uproar because if their actions. In the year 2012, during the Olympics, “Twitter suspended the account of a journalist who was questioning NBC’s coverage of the …show more content…
However, a social media provider must have a place where contentious content owners can raise their concerns about the content to removed. Also, the social media provider should not benefit financially from the offending activity. This creates a particularly big problem for social media platforms that allow users to publish videos, music and photos. In cases of collaborative sites, the user himself creates a page on these sites and publishes what he wants to release, be it a picture, a book or a video. However, the content must comply with the specific terms of these sites. However, when publishing an image or writing, whether for the same user or a third party, permission must be obtained for publication. In the absence of a disclosure permit or the status of other unauthorised applications for the work in question, regardless of users who disclose illegal content, individuals or companies that exploit these collaborative sites, i.e. ISPs, may be prosecuted for improper use of this material. For example, YouTube allows its users to publish music and videos on their platform. That has been pursued by most large media owners because they benefit from views by advertising on the most viewed videos. Although YouTube has strong policies against sharing copyrighted material, some users still violate these