I feel that because web tech advanced more quickly than much of society, a vacuum of power developed and Google was forced to step in. If Google had its way, it wouldn't police any content and it would illegally host HBO shows like Game of Thrones -- when you try to hold them responsible, Google would pass off all burden to the offending individual. That's how YouTube used to run.
Other industries have things like the FCC or the FDA where companies can say, "Look, we did our due diligence, the FDA approved our drug."
Do you think digital media needs a state run mediator?
I think it's probably time.
We've become quite protective of the data that's collected by digital products for fear of a concentration of power.
But then we all see the internet as a great 'leveller', and we don't want to disturb that balance.
The likes of the FDA (or your local equivalent) work at a certain scale... Perhaps civilly agreed constraints can be applied to companies who have managed to cultivate a userbase of a certain size.
Like a 'tax' of a kind on the amount of 'trash' you're allowed to ignore, before the police physically ensure you and your users can't abuse state infrastructure for whatever your nefarious purpose is.
One of the people making the argument is Nate Matias, the guy behind Civil servant, which is essentially the first open testing system to see the impact of content moderation rules on users -
Didn't Google develop Content ID voluntarily, though? It's not like anyone forced them to. Though I guess it may have been to avoid the threat of regulation
Other industries have things like the FCC or the FDA where companies can say, "Look, we did our due diligence, the FDA approved our drug."