Loren Feldman, 1938 Media, and blip.tv
Yesterday, Loren Feldman, the author of a controversial video, decided to use blip as his host. A few hours later we received a letter warning us of potential damage to our brand. I responded that speech should be countered with speech, not censorship.
Context & Ripple Effects
In August 2007 blip.tv is one of a generation of independent video hosts competing on openness, and Loren Feldman — whose controversial 1938 Media videos had already stirred dispute over their content — chose it as the host for his latest clip. Within hours, blip.tv received a letter warning that hosting the video could damage its brand.
First-order effects
- Blip.tv's decision to leave the Feldman video up puts the company directly on the hook for whatever brand damage the complainant warned of, with advertisers and partners as the exposed audience.
- Feldman gains a host willing to absorb that pressure, while the sender of the warning letter gets blip.tv's stated answer that speech should be countered with speech, not censorship.
Second-order effects
- Every rival video host now faces the same binary when controversial creators come calling: match blip.tv's hands-off stance and share the brand risk, or remove content and become the destination for takedowns.
- Creators who traffic in provocation gain leverage in host negotiations, since a public refusal to censor is itself a selling point against more skittish platforms.
Third-order effects
- If brand-pressure letters become the standard tool against video hosts, content moderation shifts from a legal necessity to an explicit competitive position, forcing the 2007 crop of independent video platforms to define editorial lines they previously avoided stating.
The trend: User-generated video hosting is becoming the proving ground for how far platforms will go in separating their brand from what they host, a line each host must now draw publicly.