AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not much to go on yet, but apparently there's an active shooter near the YouTube HQ in San Bruno, the BBC reports. Stay safe Dakkanauts!
EDIT: Being picked up by more media outlets, so it's not just the BBC anymore.
A man who was shot and is currently in critical condition is reported to have been the shooters boyfriend. So this seems to be a personal attack rather than a random psycho looking for infamy after death.
Edit: I checked bbc news again this morning and looks like the above is wrong. She didn't know any of the victims.
A man who was shot and is currently in critical condition is reported to have been the shooters boyfriend. So this seems to be a personal attack rather than a random psycho looking for infamy after death.
Workplace killings are almost always personal in some way. While not a psycho, I have to wonder if there is some sort of bi-polar or chronic depression issue because women doing this type of thing really is unusual.
A man who was shot and is currently in critical condition is reported to have been the shooters boyfriend. So this seems to be a personal attack rather than a random psycho looking for infamy after death.
I wonder if this will make Youtube back off on demonitization and general mucking about with politically charged video topics in terms of censoring stuff that Youtube disagrees with.
Ouze wrote: They shouldn't. It's their platform, and it's supported by ads. They know what kind of videos can drive ad sales.
That's only "censorship" if you don't have a basic understanding of what censorship actually is.
Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.
Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.
Grey Templar wrote: Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.
Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.
Grey Templar wrote: Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.
Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.
So yeah, no understanding of what censorship is.
You seem under the very erroneous assumption that Censorship can only be conducted by a Government. That is utterly false.
It is typically used in the context of a government doing it, but private parties can definitely conduct the practice. The ACLU definitely holds that private parties are capable of doing it.
I'm not going to get into this debate with you because my long experience has shown that it's likely any explanation would slide off you like water off a duck.
Suffice it to say, I would expect a summary judgement for any lawsuit filed against Youtube by any of those gun channels, assuming they can even find a lawyer willing to take a case that will almost certainly be laughed out of court.
You have no right to free speech on someone else's platform.
Ouze wrote: I'm not going to get into this debate with you because my long experience has shown that it's likely any explanation would slide off you like water off a duck.
Suffice it to say, I would expect a summary judgement for any lawsuit filed against Youtube by any of those gun channels, assuming they can even find a lawyer willing to take a case that will almost certainly be laughed out of court.
You have no right to free speech on someone else's platform.
Go ahead with your explanation dude, if you actually have one and aren't just blowing smoke to sound like an internet tough guy. Because I'm seeing a lot of stuff saying otherwise, and no its not all from people who are whining about Youtube cracking down.
Ouze wrote: They shouldn't. It's their platform, and it's supported by ads. They know what kind of videos can drive ad sales.
That's only "censorship" if you don't have a basic understanding of what censorship actually is.
Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.
Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.
The 1st Amendment only protects you against the Government. If you come in my house and start telling me how you think Ultramarines are the best SM Chapter in the whole game, I can put a stop to that bullgak real quick by telling you to gtfo and there is nothing you can do about it. In fact, the government will come and remove you from my house for me if you refuse to gtfo. Welcome to being censored!
Ouze wrote: They shouldn't. It's their platform, and it's supported by ads. They know what kind of videos can drive ad sales.
That's only "censorship" if you don't have a basic understanding of what censorship actually is.
Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.
Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.
The 1st Amendment only protects you against the Government. If you come in my house and start telling me how you think Ultramarines are the best SM Chapter in the whole game, I can put a stop to that bullgak real quick by telling you to gtfo and there is nothing you can do about it. In fact, the government will come and remove you from my house for me if you refuse to gtfo. Welcome to being censored!
Nope, Civil rights can protect against Private parties too if you are operating within a public space.
Lets take the Christian Bakery cases that went through recently. It was ruled that you couldn't refuse to sell an off the rack cake to a Gay person in your shop, because its a public business. It was ruled in another case however that you could refuse to make custom cake for a gay wedding, but you'd still have to sell a basic off the rack cake without any added specific customization if they asked for it.
This same precedent can easily apply to youtube. Youtube is a public place on the internet for all intents and purposes. Anybody can post videos on there within the normal limits that free speech has in public settings. But Youtube in all likely hood legally cannot censor your speech on their site simply because they disagree with it. Nudity, hate speech, etc... are not protected under free speech, and thats why Youtube can limit those videos, but something like "How to build a gun" absolutely would be protected under free speech.
So its really a question of "Is Youtube a public space?" Maybe it wasn't in the past, but considering the size and pervasiveness of the platform it likely has become one.
Youtube would have to make major changes to the requirements for making accounts to become a private space again. Something as simple as a fee of some kind for having an account, which would make them similar to a Private Club which then squarely puts them as being a non-public platform.
Grey Templar wrote: Nudity, hate speech, etc... are not protected under free speech
This is exactly why I can't talk to you about this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Hate speech is protected speech. This is a basic textbook example of how free speech works, and this whole thing is going to turn into another example of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
Grey Templar wrote: Nudity, hate speech, etc... are not protected under free speech
This is exactly why I can't talk to you about this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Hate speech is protected speech. This is a basic textbook example of how free speech works, and this whole thing is going to turn into another example of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
You are correct. I was wrong on hate speech. Lets use a better example. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater and other similar things.
Perhaps you could explain your position instead of taking veiled jabs at my intelligence, because that just makes you look bad.
I'm not making veiled jabs at your intelligence. I'm saying that I don't think you understand how free speech works, and this is something we've argued about before. There are a great many things, most things even, that I totally don't understand. Chemistry, for example; is an utter mystery to me. No matter how smart a person is are I think you're destined to not understand some stuff. And that's OK!
My beef is that when we have these kinds of discussions, as we have had many times before, you don't seem to understand the fundamental arguments here (which is fine!) but you also don't realize you don't, so there can't really be a productive conversation. Does that make sense?
Crazyterran wrote: Someone went on a shooting spree about their youtube channel being demonetized? Get a real job, maybe?
I definitely feel the same way to some extent. These millennials definitely seem to think streaming is a legit profession, though. I don't understand it /shrug.
Dont get me wrong, if you hit it big, go for it. Its the modern Hollywood to an extent. Have another job while you try to do it, though, and dont rely on it.
You never know who the next Pewdiepie is going to be, after all.
Crazyterran wrote: Someone went on a shooting spree about their youtube channel being demonetized? Get a real job, maybe?
I definitely feel the same way to some extent. These millennials definitely seem to think streaming is a legit profession, though. I don't understand it /shrug.
Streaming has kinda taken a similar position to being an actor, playing sports, a musician, or being an artist in terms of a career. Its something a lot of people would dream of doing, and the barrier to entry is low to actually participate in it. But realistically any individual who attempts it has little to no chance of making it big time.
Sure, PewdePie made bank streaming. But you doing the same is about as likely as you trying to be an actor and dreaming of being as big a movie star as Angelina Jolie. More likely you'd just end up trying out for toothpaste and hemorrhoid cream commercials and get told you really don't have anything to stand out from the ten billion other people trying to be actors too.
Streaming is probably even more attractive because the barrier to entry is so extremely low even relative to something like playing in the minor leagues or trying out in commercial auditions. You literally just need a microphone, webcam, and a computer. And the first two things are often standard equipment on laptops nowdays.
Ouze wrote: I'm not making veiled jabs at your intelligence. I'm saying that I don't think you understand how free speech works, and this is something we've argued about before. There are a great many things, most things even, that I totally don't understand. Chemistry, for example; is an utter mystery to me. No matter how smart a person is are I think you're destined to not understand some stuff. And that's OK!
My beef is that when we have these kinds of discussions, as we have had many times before, you don't seem to understand the fundamental arguments here (which is fine!) but you also don't realize you don't, so there can't really be a productive conversation. Does that make sense?
Thats why I actually read stuff about these things I don't understand and have conversations about them. I'm trying to learn and use what I do learn in discussions.
Someone like you just showing up and saying "Your conclusion is wrong and you're incapable of understanding this subject" is utterly non-productive.
Grey Templar wrote: I wonder if this will make Youtube back off on demonitization and general mucking about with politically charged video topics in terms of censoring stuff that Youtube disagrees with.
This is completely wrong in two ways.
1) There is a big difference between censoring and de-monetizing. De-monetized videos are still available for viewing on youtube, if the creator leaves them up. They are just no longer going to have youtube ads because youtube has a business dependent on advertisers to maintain, and those advertisers have said they don't want their ads connected to or making money for creators of contraversial content. So anyone can still use Youtube to make all the crazy political conspiracy nonsense they want, they just can't use youtube's advertising network to make money out of their crazy nonsense. The actual stuff that is banned on youtube that will be entirely taken down is mundane, long accepted stuff like no nudity and no hate speech.
2) Youtube's policies for which videos are demonetised have nothing to do with what youtube themselves agree with. It's about not creating hassle for youtube or any of their advertisers, because they are a business and protecting advertising is their business.
So that's two ways in which your political stance is totally and completely wrong. And this is not the first time you've waded in to a subject with a completely mistaken understanding of the actual situation. You need to stop doing this. You need to address how you approach subjects and how you try to understand them, and radically change some or all of that process.
Youtube is not a public space, it is more of a private club. You have to be a member to post things. A private club that you have to sign a ToS agreement for to use. Kinda like this site!
So what happens when one company practically monopolises all the primary social media so that the majority of the space the public occupy is in fact privately owned by one person or corporation? There is no public space online, it’s all privately owned. As it’s a main form of communication, they have all the power.
It’s a shame that people above are refusing to discuss the situation and just saying ‘you’re wrong I’m not discussing it’, because I think there is an argument here for treating the private/public spaces on the internet differently. The internet, and sites like YouTube, is a different beast to going into someone’s living room for a conversation. They traffic the majority of the public and make themselves a public space. They are vast and for a long time largely unregulated. I can see the argument that in assuming that role so long, and because of the large swathe of the ‘public space’ they cover online, they have relinquished their private control. Otherwise total control over speech in the perceived ‘public spaces’ on the internet actually falls under the control of a minority of individuals.
It’s a situation where the internet doesn’t quite reflect normal life for which laws were created. No city is like the internet because all cities have public free spaces. The internet doesn’t, it would be like living in a city where every street, building and park was privately owned, by a few individuals, and despite knowing about free speech and being allowed to walk wheverever you liked, you actually have no freedom to speech anywhere at all. Given that the internet is one of the main forms of communication today, that does seem problematic.
Howard A Treesong wrote: So what happens when one company practically monopolises all the primary social media so that the majority of the space the public occupy is in fact privately owned by one person or corporation? There is no public space online, it’s all privately owned. As it’s a main form of communication, they have all the power.
Then they either adopt permissive content policies that allow virtually everyone to use their service, or they find their monopoly broken as the people they decline to provide service to become customers for their competition. Social media monopolies can only exist so long as the average person does not have their service disrupted, which means limiting their content exclusion to a minority of fringe extremists and similar material.
It’s a situation where the internet doesn’t quite reflect normal life for which laws were created. No city is like the internet because all cities have public free spaces. The internet doesn’t, it would be like living in a city where every street, building and park was privately owned, by a few individuals, and despite knowing about free speech and being allowed to walk wheverever you liked, you actually have no freedom to speech anywhere at all. Given that the internet is one of the main forms of communication today, that does seem problematic.
Of course the internet has free public spaces. The IP address system is open for people to register websites, and anyone who wants to can host their own site with whatever speech they wish to put on it. The fact that youtube/facebook/whatever are not assisting you in broadcasting your message to everyone you want to see it does not mean that you are unable to speak. The right to freedom of speech is not the right to have an audience provided for you.
And what is the alternative? Declare that once your internet business reaches a certain traffic level it is nationalized (by whose government?) and you must forfeit control over your content to the state?
Youtube is not a public space, it is more of a private club. You have to be a member to post things. A private club that you have to sign a ToS agreement for to use. Kinda like this site!
To repeat myself, Youtube doesn't restrict anything other than hate speech, nudity etc. You can put up videos on whatever politics you want. It really is an open platform. But Youtube will protect the interests of its advertisers who don't want to be connected to whackjob and nasty stuff, so if you put that stuff up you can't connect to Youtube's advertising money stream.
The actual argument being attempted by Gray Templar and some other people is that Youtube shouldn't just include their videos, they should be made the share revenue streams from advertisers who want nothing to do with the videos they're making. It's plainly ridiculous.
Grey Templar wrote: Lets take the Christian Bakery cases that went through recently. It was ruled that you couldn't refuse to sell an off the rack cake to a Gay person in your shop, because its a public business. It was ruled in another case however that you could refuse to make custom cake for a gay wedding, but you'd still have to sell a basic off the rack cake without any added specific customization if they asked for it.
That case has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because a business transaction is not speech. The laws governing sales to the public and speech are entirely different, and attempting to apply one to the other can only lead to absurdity. And note that this only happened because of a specific state law saying "you can't refuse service to gay people", in other states the refusal would be 100% legal just like refusing to sell a cake to someone because they're a fan of a sports team you hate.
An actual freedom of speech case would be if the business owner had posted a sign saying "I believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman as Jesus intended". This would clearly be a situation where censorship would be unacceptable, but the business would still have to sell that cake off the shelf to a gay customer.
Howard A Treesong wrote: So what happens when one company practically monopolises all the primary social media so that the majority of the space the public occupy is in fact privately owned by one person or corporation? There is no public space online, it’s all privately owned. As it’s a main form of communication, they have all the power.
Social media is a network, it depends on users to have value. If users find one network's policies too restrictive or controlling, the uses will move. Youtube understands this. Videos that Youtube can't put ads on are fairly useless to Youtube, but they have shown no interest in taking down that content. Because if it stopped being available on youtube those creators and their audience would quickly migrate to a Youtube clone.
It’s a shame that people above are refusing to discuss the situation and just saying ‘you’re wrong I’m not discussing it’, because I think there is an argument here for treating the private/public spaces on the internet differently.
That's not a fair summary. Ouze wasn't refusing to discuss the issue at all, he was refusing to discuss it with Gray Templar, because they've discussed it before, and Ouze didn't want to repeat the experience of explaining the basics of the situation repeatedly. Have you had a conversation with Gray Templar? I understand where Ouze is coming from. I mean I piled in anyway, but I'm fairly masochistic about my time on the internet.
It’s a situation where the internet doesn’t quite reflect normal life for which laws were created. No city is like the internet because all cities have public free spaces. The internet doesn’t, it would be like living in a city where every street, building and park was privately owned, by a few individuals, and despite knowing about free speech and being allowed to walk wheverever you liked, you actually have no freedom to speech anywhere at all.
But its also unlike the real world, because on the internet when we find a space no longer suiting out needs we can make a new one effectively overnight.
sebster wrote: To repeat myself, Youtube doesn't restrict anything other than hate speech, nudity etc. You can put up videos on whatever politics you want. It really is an open platform.
It is important to note that Youtube does this as a voluntary choice of policies (because why not make money off everyone), not because they are obligated to host all legal content. They could remove political videos from a particular side if they wanted to, and there's nothing anyone could do to force them to restore the content. It just happens to be the case that such an act would be bad for business in the current situation.
I have no idea what she thought YouTube was doing to her, specifically.....her video is certainly *NOT* "nsfw". She cuts up underwear to make a shirt/top...big whoop...then flexes.
The look in her eyes is.....wow....reminiscent of Manson in some ways. It is that stare of the insane.....
Ouze wrote: They shouldn't. It's their platform, and it's supported by ads. They know what kind of videos can drive ad sales.
That's only "censorship" if you don't have a basic understanding of what censorship actually is.
Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.
Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.
Wait, so you would have us trample all over Youtube's private property rights, just to serve the public good? Sounds like commie talk to me!
Peregrine wrote: It is important to note that Youtube does this as a voluntary choice of policies (because why not make money off everyone), not because they are obligated to host all legal content. They could remove political videos from a particular side if they wanted to, and there's nothing anyone could do to force them to restore the content. It just happens to be the case that such an act would be bad for business in the current situation.
Yep, dropping that content would be bad for business. Even content that isn't making money for Youtube is still on Youtube, not being used to start up a rival site. No censorship is good for Youtube's business model.
Howard A Treesong wrote: So what happens when one company practically monopolises all the primary social media so that the majority of the space the public occupy is in fact privately owned by one person or corporation? There is no public space online, it’s all privately owned. As it’s a main form of communication, they have all the power.
Peregrine already touched on this: it's not a monopoly at all. You're welcome to start your own streaming site right now, if you were so inclined. I'm only posting because I wanted to add that there was a very recent hubbub with Youtube where they demonetized a bunch of gun-related channels that sort of got touched on. In this case, all of those channels started moving over to other streaming sites: Full30, InrangeTV, and so on. The free market at work. In the US, you're guaranteed the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to have access to a private platform.
It's like the recent banhammering of gutter dwelling far right pondlife from the UK.
Britain First, Steven Yaxley 'Tommy Robinson' Lennon, The Potato Man and the Shrieking Racist Harridan (latter two are currently detained at Her Majesty's pleasure) all perma banned from both Facebook and Twitter.
And of course, their bull necked, brainless followers keep on hooting about 'fredum uv spech'....not realising that nobody has an inalienable right to a Facebook or Twitter account. Or YouTube channel.
Despite their most fervent wishes, it's no more controversial or illegal than me being banned from Dakka for having called another poster a big smelly ploppy poo. I ain't got no right to be on Dakka. Only the owners (not the Mods or DCM neither) have that.
Crazyterran wrote: Dont get me wrong, if you hit it big, go for it. Its the modern Hollywood to an extent. Have another job while you try to do it, though, and dont rely on it.
You never know who the next Pewdiepie is going to be, after all.
It's so simple when you put it that way. Why do people even poor anymore?
Youtube is not a public space, it is more of a private club. You have to be a member to post things. A private club that you have to sign a ToS agreement for to use. Kinda like this site!
To repeat myself, Youtube doesn't restrict anything other than hate speech, nudity etc. You can put up videos on whatever politics you want. It really is an open platform. But Youtube will protect the interests of its advertisers who don't want to be connected to whackjob and nasty stuff, so if you put that stuff up you can't connect to Youtube's advertising money stream.
The actual argument being attempted by Gray Templar and some other people is that Youtube shouldn't just include their videos, they should be made the share revenue streams from advertisers who want nothing to do with the videos they're making. It's plainly ridiculous.
YouTube doesn't limit it's restrictions to just hate speech, nudity, etc., YouTube restricts whatever content they want however they see fit. I don't have a problem with YouTube dictating what content is allowed on their site (their site, their rules) but you're mistaken if you think they only restrict hate speech and nudity.
Howard A Treesong wrote: So what happens when one company practically monopolises all the primary social media so that the majority of the space the public occupy is in fact privately owned by one person or corporation? There is no public space online, it’s all privately owned. As it’s a main form of communication, they have all the power.
Peregrine already touched on this: it's not a monopoly at all. You're welcome to start your own streaming site right now, if you were so inclined. I'm only posting because I wanted to add that there was a very recent hubbub with Youtube where they demonetized a bunch of gun-related channels that sort of got touched on. In this case, all of those channels started moving over to other streaming sites: Full30, InrangeTV, and so on. The free market at work. In the US, you're guaranteed the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to have access to a private platform.
Inrange TV isn't a streaming site it's just 2 guys who make videos, most of which involve firearms and related content. They have a YouTube channel but they are now posting on other streaming sites as well due to their videos being taken down by YouTube with increasing frequency.
Bloomberg Media reached out directly to InRange regarding their recent move to PornHub. Their verbatim response is re-printed here with permission.
Hello,
Thank you for your interest in InRange and for looking into this issue deeper as it is obviously an important one that deals with far more than just our content on InRange, but touches at the core of social media’s control over what has become increasingly “the public sphere of conversation”.
YouTube’s recent update on their policy towards firearm content is extremely poorly worded and open ended. It is unclear what their goals are directly, as well as what content is (or might be) actually effected. YouTube’s actions against firearms related, as well as some other, content over recent history has been increasingly arbitrary and capricious so there is little reason to believe that this new policy is not going to be used to hammer content creators into whatever corner they see fit. Over the last year or so we’ve seen our content be de-prioritized, flagged erroneously, demonetized by AI bots with little recourse, subscribers lose their notifications and subscription status without warning and more.
InRange has taken a number of steps to partially mitigate this attack against our legal and responsible content: we deleted our AdSense account entirely and moved to a crowd sourced funding model wholly via Patreon, have posted a number of videos in regards to digital rights and issues above and beyond that of just firearms related content, and we’ve decentralized the distribution of content to multiple delivery networks. At this time we are currently publishing content simultaneously on YouTube, Full30, Facebook, BitChute and now PornHub. We will not be seeking any monetization from PornHub and do not know what their monetization policies are, we are merely looking for a safe harbor for our content and for our viewers.
I would like to point out that a very simple search on YouTube for marijuana and bong reveals substantial results of people explaining, teaching the use of, advocation and actively using a Federally illegal schedule 1 substance:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=marijuana+bong While I personally believe that people should have autonomy over their own body and be allowed to make personal choices about what they intake into themselves, I can’t help but find it hypocritical and disturbing that clearly illegal activity is acceptable why clearly legal activity, such as the content we distribute via InRange, is being actively persecuted.
In summary, we are looking for a safe harbor for our legal content and viewers, monetization aside. YouTube has the global dominance over the public narrative and it is unacceptable, in our opinion, for them to threaten livelihoods and legal content regardless of whatever current moral panic is in play.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Karl Kasarda
&
Ian McCollum
Howard A Treesong wrote: So what happens when one company practically monopolises all the primary social media so that the majority of the space the public occupy is in fact privately owned by one person or corporation? There is no public space online, it’s all privately owned. As it’s a main form of communication, they have all the power.
Peregrine already touched on this: it's not a monopoly at all. You're welcome to start your own streaming site right now, if you were so inclined. I'm only posting because I wanted to add that there was a very recent hubbub with Youtube where they demonetized a bunch of gun-related channels that sort of got touched on. In this case, all of those channels started moving over to other streaming sites: Full30, InrangeTV, and so on. The free market at work. In the US, you're guaranteed the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to have access to a private platform.
To be fair, the economics of that market are wildly stilted. Looking at say, Full30's platform, its not open to just anyone, they only take certain channels that have to have a minimum size, and that platform has hit growth issues as well preventing them from taking on many new channels for quite a while, and those on there have a tiny fraction of the audience and views that YouTube brings. InRangeTV's attempts to move to other places has ensured their content will survive but they are getting miniscule traffic outside of YouTube (literally multiple orders of magnitude different), while Pornhub has cut off their attempted move there.
YouTube, in practical terms at the current time, is effectively a monopoly for content like that. Other platforms are so far behind in terms of infrastructure, viewership, and other such things that there is no meaningful competition if you want to make a commercial go of a project like InRangeTV, even if theyre totally demonetized on YouTube, the access to that viewer base is just too critcal.
Its kinda like "yeah I *can* go with centurylink over comcast...and boy do I hate comcast...but centurylink isnt much cheaper and they only offer bottom tier internet at 10% the speed of what I can get from Comcast...so I dont really have an option".
That may change, and I suspect it will if YouTube restricts more and more content, but for the time being, even if competition exists, theyre infants playing in a giants arena.
Youtube is not a public space, it is more of a private club. You have to be a member to post things. A private club that you have to sign a ToS agreement for to use. Kinda like this site!
I get what you are saying and it makes. What gives me pause is the scale of YouTube. They are practically the only game in town for video streaming, and Google in the larger sense that they own even more of these social media sites. That’s why I think they’ve crossed a line into where they can’t limit speech on their platforms.
Youtube is not a public space, it is more of a private club. You have to be a member to post things. A private club that you have to sign a ToS agreement for to use. Kinda like this site!
I get what you are saying and it makes. What gives me pause is the scale of YouTube. They are practically the only game in town for video streaming, and Google in the larger sense that they own even more of these social media sites. That’s why I think they’ve crossed a line into where they can’t limit speech on their platforms.
There is no line to be crossed. It ultimately doesn't matter the scale.
If da people dont like it then they need to bug their representatives to go put in legislation to deal with the problem as a whole. (its not going to happen lol)
its off topic but there should be laws in place to prevent or break this monopoly no?
Youtube is not a public space, it is more of a private club. You have to be a member to post things. A private club that you have to sign a ToS agreement for to use. Kinda like this site!
I get what you are saying and it makes. What gives me pause is the scale of YouTube. They are practically the only game in town for video streaming, and Google in the larger sense that they own even more of these social media sites. That’s why I think they’ve crossed a line into where they can’t limit speech on their platforms.
There is no line to be crossed. It ultimately doesn't matter the scale.
So your position is that Internet is actually entirely a private domain? Since every website that gets made becomes private property its impossible for there to be freedom of anything.
Youtube is not a public space, it is more of a private club. You have to be a member to post things. A private club that you have to sign a ToS agreement for to use. Kinda like this site!
I get what you are saying and it makes. What gives me pause is the scale of YouTube. They are practically the only game in town for video streaming, and Google in the larger sense that they own even more of these social media sites. That’s why I think they’ve crossed a line into where they can’t limit speech on their platforms.
There is no line to be crossed. It ultimately doesn't matter the scale.
So your position is that Internet is actually entirely a private domain? Since every website that gets made becomes private property its impossible for there to be freedom of anything.
I suppose that makes sense rationally.
rationally speaking that's what the point of a TOS is. you agreed to use their services in exchange for your "freedoms" its not like you foot the bill for the servers the electricity the bandwidth or anything so companies are beholden to their sources of revenuer. for youtube its their advertisers. nothing is free. though not saying youtube doesn't make buko bucks or anything like that.
Yeah, there are laws in place which could easily be used vs companies like this, particularly Google. And I am a supporter of monopoly breaking. The thing is there is no political interest from anybody to do this on either side of aisle.
There is a definite point where market power for any large prvivate entity that wields large economic, cultural, etc power will begin to see its freedom restricted in the name of the public good if alternatives cannot viably compete. Microsoft lived under this threat for over a decade, ITT was broken up over it and its successors have faced strong pressures against reconsolodation and the types of things they could do until fairly recently. The whole Net Neutrality thing is based in that concept, that ISP's should not muck with traffic for commercial gain because alternatives arent readily available for most. We regulate utilities, even when private, because effective competition is often not possible.
As for YouTube, theyre trying to stamp out certain things to please advertisers and preempt other forms of regulation on content (a valid concern) and limit potential liability, all rational objectices, but may run into other issues in the process as a result of their scale and market power as a result.
Grey Templar wrote: So your position is that Internet is actually entirely a private domain? Since every website that gets made becomes private property its impossible for there to be freedom of anything.
Exactly, everything on the internet is a private domain. Freedom of speech is provided by the fact that you are free to create your own private domain and use it to say whatever you want to say.
Vaktathi wrote: There is a definite point where market power for any large prvivate entity that wields large economic, cultural, etc power will begin to see its freedom restricted in the name of the public good if alternatives cannot viably compete. Microsoft lived under this threat for over a decade, ITT was broken up over it and its successors have faced strong pressures against reconsolodation and the types of things they could do until fairly recently. The whole Net Neutrality thing is based in that concept, that ISP's should not muck with traffic for commercial gain because alternatives arent readily available for most. We regulate utilities, even when private, because effective competition is often not possible.
As for YouTube, theyre trying to stamp out certain things to please advertisers and preempt other forms of regulation on content (a valid concern) and limit potential liability, all rational objectices, but may run into other issues in the process as a result of their scale and market power as a result.
Which would be fine if they just made Advertisers ads only appear on videos that those advertisers wanted.
Really, it just seems like Youtube should do a better job of sorting what ads appear on what videos instead of totally demonetizing videos and/or banning channels. I'd be ok with them preventing ads from being on Gun videos if the advertisers didn't want to be there, but totally yanking certain gun videos is crossing the line.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, there are laws in place which could easily be used vs companies like this, particularly Google.
Like what? How do you break a monopoly that exists because the customers prefer one product over another? Has Google engaged in anti-competitive behavior to shut down competing video streaming sites? What would breaking Youtube's "monopoly" even consist of?
Vaktathi wrote: We regulate utilities, even when private, because effective competition is often not possible.
The difference is that Youtube is not a utility, it is a content provider. The only thing stopping competition with Youtube is that most customers feel that it is superior to its current competition.
Grey Templar wrote: So your position is that Internet is actually entirely a private domain? Since every website that gets made becomes private property its impossible for there to be freedom of anything.
Exactly, everything on the internet is a private domain. Freedom of speech is provided by the fact that you are free to create your own private domain and use it to say whatever you want to say.
I understand that and it does make sense. But I don't think that should be the case. If you become large enough that you have the lions share, your content has become a public space.
Its sort of like if someone managed to purchase all the sidewalks and streets in New York city and make them private property. People could still walk and drive their cars and all the rules of the road still applied because they all had to be leased to the city as a condition of the purchase, but you couldn't practice the 1st amendment on any of those roads and sidewalks. That would most likely be ruled to be illegal.
Grey Templar wrote: So your position is that Internet is actually entirely a private domain? Since every website that gets made becomes private property its impossible for there to be freedom of anything.
Exactly, everything on the internet is a private domain. Freedom of speech is provided by the fact that you are free to create your own private domain and use it to say whatever you want to say.
I understand that and it does make sense. But I don't think that should be the case. If you become large enough that you have the lions share, your content has become a public space.
Its sort of like if someone managed to purchase all the sidewalks and streets in New York city and make them private property. People could still walk and drive their cars and all the rules of the road still applied because they all had to be leased to the city as a condition of the purchase, but you couldn't practice the 1st amendment on any of those roads and sidewalks. That would most likely be ruled to be illegal.
The better analogy would be the argument that Walmart doesn't become a public space, simply because they are everywhere. And Starbucks doesn't have to let you enter the store, speak, and be forced to pay you money for your speech, simply because they are the biggest coffee shop in the US.
Grey Templar wrote: If you become large enough that you have the lions share, your content has become a public space.
It really hasn't. Popularity does not change whether something is private property or not. For example, a private museum can have a ton of visitors every year, and even become the biggest tourist attraction in town, but they still have the right to decide who they allow in and what work they display. In a city with a single newspaper you don't have the right to demand that your article be posted (at the paper's expense). Etc.
And aside from the definition problem, how do you justify the morality of seizing private property once it reaches a certain traffic level? In the context of a "public space" that exists for an international audience which government gets to set the rules?
Its sort of like if someone managed to purchase all the sidewalks and streets in New York city and make them private property. People could still walk and drive their cars and all the rules of the road still applied because they all had to be leased to the city as a condition of the purchase, but you couldn't practice the 1st amendment on any of those roads and sidewalks. That would most likely be ruled to be illegal.
Illegal on what grounds? It's private property, just a very large piece of private property. Unless the city put "must allow speech" in the terms of the lease then there would be no justification for ruling it illegal. Private property doesn't cease to be private property just because it exceeds a certain number of square feet.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, there are laws in place which could easily be used vs companies like this, particularly Google.
Like what? How do you break a monopoly that exists because the customers prefer one product over another? Has Google engaged in anti-competitive behavior to shut down competing video streaming sites? What would breaking Youtube's "monopoly" even consist of?
Mergers and Acquisitions for one on the part of Google. Also, you don't have to only engage in deliberate anti-competitive behavior to be found in violation. Youtube's size alone and dominance of the video streaming 'market' would allow for them to be seen as a Monopoly even if they did nothing to actively discourage competition.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony...
The bolded part requires the individual in question to have deliberately tried to become a monopoly, but the underlined part does not require intent. It can be enforced simply because the individual in question became a monopoly, even if it wasn't be any specific design on their part. Youtube could be seen as a monopoly because they have no competitors.
As for what breaking Youtube's Monopoly up would look like, it would likely just consist of duplicating Youtube and all of its videos to make 2 new Streaming sites with different domain names and forcing Google to sell one of them to another company. The company google kept would remain Youtube and the new one would be named something else.
I'd worry about Sinclair or the majority of our newspapers that directly control content, long before I would worry about YouTube letting people speak without paying them for it.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, there are laws in place which could easily be used vs companies like this, particularly Google.
Like what? How do you break a monopoly that exists because the customers prefer one product over another? Has Google engaged in anti-competitive behavior to shut down competing video streaming sites? What would breaking Youtube's "monopoly" even consist of?
That depends.
There are certain natural monopolies that exist just because it wouldn't make sense to duplicate what they do. For example, you would not have multiple power lines going into the same building. Those need to be regulated.
In markets where you could have rivals, but you don't have rivals, that's where monopolistic institutions come into play. Traditionally, in America, we have tried to keep businesses small and local, accountable to the communities they affect. This has changed over my lifetime, and absentee ownership has become a thing. But there's all kinds of negative effects to this kind of business that can be measured: things like obesity, decline in voting participation, reduction in per capita income, etc.
If you look at Google and the impact it has had on the Internet as a whole, it's hard to say what parts of it fit into which category of monopoly. An antitrust study would need to be commissioned to determine the ways in which it organizes the industry for search results, how they use data, and how they manipulate us.
I think YouTube, rather than being considered a monopoly on it's own, becomes a part of the equation in that it helps Google to manipulate the search industry. They control what videos get recommended, which has a huge impact on what content gets viewed. Claims that only hate-speech and terrorism are kept out of related content are not entirely true, every time they recommend one video over another, they are controlling the visibility of what appears to people. It's part of how monopolies function, even if it seems benevolent there's a control apparatus in place that ultimately serves the monopoly.
But controlling what people see and hear on the Internet, through search results, through recommended content, through censorship of some videos, etc - those functions give us pretty good insight into areas of overlap that should be split up. The idea they all function as part of a single company (even if it's under the holding company Alphabet) is pretty crazy.
Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.
Bing isn't used because it sucks (other than searching for porn, so maybe they just know their audience), not because of anything Google is doing. Their mighty monopoly certainly hasn't saved Google+ from failing.
The market is open for anybody to make their own search engine and video site, many do. So there is no monopoly.
d-usa wrote: I'd worry about Sinclair or the majority of our newspapers that directly control content, long before I would worry about YouTube letting people speak without paying them for it.
Given that Newspaper readership is dropping like a stone I wouldn't worry about them. Its all about online content nowdays.
Grey Templar wrote: As for what breaking Youtube's Monopoly up would look like, it would likely just consist of duplicating Youtube and all of its videos to make 2 new Streaming sites with different domain names and forcing Google to sell one of them to another company. The company google kept would remain Youtube and the new one would be named something else.
That would accomplish absolutely nothing, because it does nothing to address the market forces driving social media to single sites. A one-time duplication of Youtube wouldn't create any incentive for anyone to actually use the new site, just like all of the smaller streaming services are neglected currently despite uploading to them being trivially easy. You'd have to have some kind of enforced user split, with half of Youtube's users being moved to the new site and banned from making new Youtube accounts, which is just plain absurd. The most likely outcome of this split would be that the new company has nothing new to offer and quickly dies off as everyone keeps using Youtube. And if the new company manages to have a superior product, well, the outcome is that company becoming a monopoly as Youtube becomes obsolete and you're right back where you started.
Such a thing would also be blatantly illegal for copyright reasons, essentially having the government declare that the IP owners of each video on Youtube have all of their IP rights assigned to this new company as well. How do you justify this act of theft?
d-usa wrote: Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.
Bing isn't used because it sucks (other than searching for porn, so maybe they just know their audience), not because of anything Google is doing. Their mighty monopoly certainly hasn't saved Google+ from failing.
The market is open for anybody to make their own search engine and video site, many do. So there is no monopoly.
Nope. Simply being the only game in town, even if you do nothing to prevent others from showing up, does make you a monopoly per the Sherman act. Being defined as a monopoly doesn't require malicious intent on your part at all. The free market can simply cause a monopoly to naturally form, which could then be broken up under anti-trust law. The difference is people care less when the free market created it as opposed to malicious intent, but the end result of no competition is still bad.
Grey Templar wrote: As for what breaking Youtube's Monopoly up would look like, it would likely just consist of duplicating Youtube and all of its videos to make 2 new Streaming sites with different domain names and forcing Google to sell one of them to another company. The company google kept would remain Youtube and the new one would be named something else.
That would accomplish absolutely nothing, because it does nothing to address the market forces driving social media to single sites. A one-time duplication of Youtube wouldn't create any incentive for anyone to actually use the new site, just like all of the smaller streaming services are neglected currently despite uploading to them being trivially easy. You'd have to have some kind of enforced user split, with half of Youtube's users being moved to the new site and banned from making new Youtube accounts, which is just plain absurd. The most likely outcome of this split would be that the new company has nothing new to offer and quickly dies off as everyone keeps using Youtube. And if the new company manages to have a superior product, well, the outcome is that company becoming a monopoly as Youtube becomes obsolete and you're right back where you started.
Such a thing would also be blatantly illegal for copyright reasons, essentially having the government declare that the IP owners of each video on Youtube have all of their IP rights assigned to this new company as well. How do you justify this act of theft?
You would simply have the IP owners of all the youtube videos now have duplicate accounts with the same videos on both sites. No theft involved.
Kinda like having accounts on multiple forums with the same user name. Just this would also come with identical video postings as well.
Vaktathi wrote: We regulate utilities, even when private, because effective competition is often not possible.
The difference is that Youtube is not a utility, it is a content provider. The only thing stopping competition with Youtube is that most customers feel that it is superior to its current competition.
The competition doesnt have anything near the reach and data that YouTube has. YouTube is the dirext beneficiary of everything Google (including everyones Google accounts) and its algorithms. Its ability to reach consumers is far beyond what any startup could hope for. It has more infrastructure and tools. It has deep and widespread access to funding, resources, and advertisers that nobody else can touch. It has channels with over a decade of content histoey and deep links to each other all focused around YouTube. To say that its pure consumer choice that YouTube has the position it does is to grossly underestimate those other aspects that shape our modern digital world.
d-usa wrote: There are a ton of streaming and hosting sites, so YouTube isn't even a monopoly.
Not in the strictest definition, but for large swathes of content types, it effectively is the only meaningful game in town. When vieweship on YouTube is literally 100, 1000, or 10000x what other platforms can deliver, that functionally makes it a monopoly in terms of the market power it wields. Alternatives may exist, but nobody is making it on those without a major YouTube presence.
I dont expect that will last forever, and I expect alternatives will develop in the future (and I expect that YouTube may shape its future content and focus more on certain types of things than trying to be the "we want it all" platform it is today), and technological advancement may chang the whole game at some point again, but right now, if you're a video content creator and you are not on YouTube, you might as well not exist.
Vaktathi wrote: There is a definite point where market power for any large prvivate entity that wields large economic, cultural, etc power will begin to see its freedom restricted in the name of the public good if alternatives cannot viably compete. Microsoft lived under this threat for over a decade, ITT was broken up over it and its successors have faced strong pressures against reconsolodation and the types of things they could do until fairly recently. The whole Net Neutrality thing is based in that concept, that ISP's should not muck with traffic for commercial gain because alternatives arent readily available for most. We regulate utilities, even when private, because effective competition is often not possible.
As for YouTube, theyre trying to stamp out certain things to please advertisers and preempt other forms of regulation on content (a valid concern) and limit potential liability, all rational objectices, but may run into other issues in the process as a result of their scale and market power as a result.
Which would be fine if they just made Advertisers ads only appear on videos that those advertisers wanted.
Really, it just seems like Youtube should do a better job of sorting what ads appear on what videos instead of totally demonetizing videos and/or banning channels. I'd be ok with them preventing ads from being on Gun videos if the advertisers didn't want to be there, but totally yanking certain gun videos is crossing the line.
Yeah, their criteria for that sort of stuff is very odd and lowest common denominator.
The biggest issue is their new policies applying to things that are perfectly legal and not harming anyone (like showing a 60 round drum mag), and that apply strikes against the account retroactively for content that may be over a decade old, and little or no recourse and intentionally vague criteria with literally no way to contact a human at YouTube about it.
One of the things that amused me about their new policy was that showing how to make a semiauto fire fast was taboo, but actual machineguns were not
Grey Templar wrote: You would simply have the IP owners of all the youtube videos now have duplicate accounts with the same videos on both sites. No theft involved.
It absolutely is theft. If I upload a video I give Youtube limited IP rights to use that video. I do NOT give any other company those same rights to use my IP. Creating a new account without my consent and uploading my IP there for the new company to use is blatant IP theft.
Vaktathi wrote: The competition doesnt have anything near the reach and data that YouTube has. YouTube is the dirext beneficiary of everything Google (including everyones Google accounts) and its algorithms. Its ability to reach consumers is far beyond what any startup could hope for. It has more infrastructure and tools. It has deep and widespread access to funding, resources, and advertisers that nobody else can touch. It has channels with over a decade of content histoey and deep links to each other all focused around YouTube. To say that its pure consumer choice that YouTube has the position it does is to grossly underestimate those other aspects that shape our modern digital world.
The same is true of every other market. There are always advantages to being an established company, but that doesn't mean that the government gets to seize your property and declare it a public space. Youtube is clearly the dominant player in the market, but it is not the only video hosting service. And it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on video hosting to the point that it can be legitimately said to be suppressing speech, rather than merely making it difficult to profit from certain business concepts.
d-usa wrote: Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.
Why do you think Google is a search engine?
This question is confusing me.... they are a search engine. their whole thing is search engines and search engine accessories. algorithms is pretty much the primary focus iirc.
Algorithms is also youtubes entire thing. no one working at youtube even knows how it works let alone can put any input or alter what it does outside of changing a perimeters.
Grey Templar wrote: You would simply have the IP owners of all the youtube videos now have duplicate accounts with the same videos on both sites. No theft involved.
It absolutely is theft. If I upload a video I give Youtube limited IP rights to use that video. I do NOT give any other company those same rights to use my IP. Creating a new account without my consent and uploading my IP there for the new company to use is blatant IP theft.
Ok, alternately you give the uploader's choice between which company they want to go to.
But hey, I guess its clear that there are issues with how I was looking at this. Maybe it doesn't work that way.
d-usa wrote: Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.
Why do you think Google is a search engine?
I sincerely apologize.
I thought people were still familiar with google.com, which is a search site operated by Google, which is a tech company, who also owns YouTube, a website where videos are hosted.
So when people complained about Google, the company, steering search results to YouTube, I simply assumed that they were steering searches conducted on google.com.
I didn't realize that google.com was discontinued by Google.
feeder wrote: Violating private property and seizing the means of production to benefit the greater good? Sounds good, comrade!
Yeah, thats not what this is at all.
You aren't arguing that YouTube is a de facto public space and should be subject to laws as a public space? You aren't arguing YouTube should have it's rights as a private entity stripped from them?
feeder wrote: Violating private property and seizing the means of production to benefit the greater good? Sounds good, comrade!
Yeah, thats not what this is at all.
You aren't arguing that YouTube is a de facto public space and should be subject to laws as a public space? You aren't arguing YouTube should have it's rights as a private entity stripped from them?
Stripped away entirely? no. Limited to where they can't infringe on the rights of their users because they have a virtual monopoly on video streaming services, yes.
Vaktathi wrote: The competition doesnt have anything near the reach and data that YouTube has. YouTube is the dirext beneficiary of everything Google (including everyones Google accounts) and its algorithms. Its ability to reach consumers is far beyond what any startup could hope for. It has more infrastructure and tools. It has deep and widespread access to funding, resources, and advertisers that nobody else can touch. It has channels with over a decade of content histoey and deep links to each other all focused around YouTube. To say that its pure consumer choice that YouTube has the position it does is to grossly underestimate those other aspects that shape our modern digital world.
The same is true of every other market. There are always advantages to being an established company, but that doesn't mean that the government gets to seize your property and declare it a public space. Youtube is clearly the dominant player in the market, but it is not the only video hosting service. And it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on video hosting to the point that it can be legitimately said to be suppressing speech, rather than merely making it difficult to profit from certain business concepts.
Its not a monopoly in the same sense that Comcast isnt a monpoly. Sure there are alternatives in the market. However, for practical purposes, these organizations can exercise monopoly power. For serial video series producers, a large component of YouTubes content and a market they basically created, there isnt an alternative that they can move to and keep afloat on. If they lose access to YouTube, their viewership isnt going to follow them to another platform in numbers large enough to sustain themselves in most instances.
Going back to the Comcast example, I *can* get CenturyLink instead of comcast...but if I want anything but the lowest tier service that barely qualifies as broadband and isnt any cheaper, my only choice is Comcast.
We'll see what happens over the next few years here. I'm not a proponent of "omg youtube is evil" or "break up google" or the like, and I suspect we will see more services generate more viewership as time goes on, but it is difficult to see where they do not wield monopoly power currently in many instances even if they arent a monopoly in the most technical sense.
d-usa wrote: Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.
Why do you think Google is a search engine?
This question is confusing me.... they are a search engine. their whole thing is search engines and search engine accessories. algorithms is pretty much the primary focus iirc.
Algorithms is also youtubes entire thing. no one working at youtube even knows how it works let alone can put any input or alter what it does outside of changing a perimeters.
Google has a search engine.
Also, they have an email client called Gmail. They have an ad network that used to be called Doubleclick. They have a video platform called YouTube. They have a news aggregator called Google News. They have a calendar and invite service called Google Calendar. They have a contact service called Google Contacts. They have a video call service called Google Hangouts. You may have heard of some of these.
They have a domain name service called Google Domains. They have a great DNS service which doesn't have a formal name, but is really useful if you work on the web. You can host your websites in their datacenters using Google Cloud. If you work on the web, you may be aware of these things, and their importance in the international communications infrastructure.
They have a collection of APIs that cover integration with all of their products. They have a business unit working on self-driving cars, I saw one last time I was in Palo Alto. As part of the holding company, they have venture capital divisions, medical divisions working to fight the aging process, they have a lot of other things most people don't think of when they think about Google.
But Google's chief product is data. That's where the majority of the company's revenue comes from. They sell it in a million ways. A lot of it is collected through the ads you see, the content they recommend, and a lot of other things. The company's main line of business is tracking human behavior and, in some cases, modifying it.
Thinking about Google as a search engine is like thinking about the Universe as New York City. You may be surrounded by it all the time, but it's just a tiny spec that actually doesn't mean much.
Google does not compete with Bing. Duck Duck Go, Yahoo, or other search providers. They control an industry for content delivery that is chiefly defined by the services offered by it's platform. They are the only player in that industry, everyone else just buys into their ecosystem.
Grey Templar wrote: Ok, alternately you give the uploader's choice between which company they want to go to.
This would be legal (assuming that the default answer if no response is given is that the IP rights remain with Youtube exclusively), but it also wouldn't accomplish the goal. If I have to choose then what incentive do I have to pick the new company, if all they are offering is the fact that they exist by government order? Why would my actions here be any different from how I currently ignore all of the other video hosting companies? The obstacle to competition with Youtube is the user base they have, not the data. Videos are easily uploaded to any other site, if the owner has a reason to do so.
feeder wrote: Violating private property and seizing the means of production to benefit the greater good? Sounds good, comrade!
Yeah, thats not what this is at all.
You aren't arguing that YouTube is a de facto public space and should be subject to laws as a public space? You aren't arguing YouTube should have it's rights as a private entity stripped from them?
Stripped away entirely? no. Limited to where they can't infringe on the rights of their users because they have a virtual monopoly on video streaming services, yes.
Stronk, comrade. The Party endorses your attitude. Those capitalist thugs will pay dearly for their success.
Grey Templar wrote: Stripped away entirely? no. Limited to where they can't infringe on the rights of their users because they have a virtual monopoly on video streaming services, yes.
Again, you're presuming that users of a private service have rights in the first place. Youtube declining to host your files is not infringing on your rights because you had no rights to be infringed.
Grey Templar wrote: Ok, alternately you give the uploader's choice between which company they want to go to.
This would be legal (assuming that the default answer if no response is given is that the IP rights remain with Youtube exclusively), but it also wouldn't accomplish the goal. If I have to choose then what incentive do I have to pick the new company, if all they are offering is the fact that they exist by government order? Why would my actions here be any different from how I currently ignore all of the other video hosting companies? The obstacle to competition with Youtube is the user base they have, not the data. Videos are easily uploaded to any other site, if the owner has a reason to do so.
Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.
As mentioned up the page, the future probably is for video hosting sites to become more specialized. Not be generic hosting like youtube is now. So gun videos would have their own site, gaming streaming would have its own site, etc...
Which just kinda makes it bizarre that youtube is banning gun videos. Why not just put advertisers who are ok with being on gun videos only on their videos?
Grey Templar wrote: Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.
But that already exists. If a new company starts with a more favorable user agreement I can click "upload" and immediately have all of my content there (well, at least as fast as my ISP will transfer the data). Youtube dominates the market because IP owners have concluded that they offer the best deal, not because they are somehow prevented from seeking alternatives.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.
But that already exists. If a new company starts with a more favorable user agreement I can click "upload" and immediately have all of my content there (well, at least as fast as my ISP will transfer the data).
Not in the practical sense. Youtube is the only real game in town if you want a platform which people will actually look at your videos on.
Grey Templar wrote: Which just kinda makes it bizarre that youtube is banning gun videos. Why not just put advertisers who are ok with being on gun videos only on their videos?
Probably one of two things: taking a political position against gun ownership and removing objectionable content (which, agree or disagree, they have a right to do), or more likely concerns over legal/PR problems in the future. If their management believes that gun videos are bad for their PR image in the current political environment then it makes sense to get them off the site. And it especially makes sense for things like "how to shoot faster with your semi-automatic gun", where there's a potential concern over new gun laws making those videos into advice on illegal activity that could get Youtube into trouble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Not in the practical sense. Youtube is the only real game in town if you want a platform which people will actually look at your videos on.
Your proposed split doesn't change this. The new site wouldn't have Youtube's current user base or the inertia of "we always go to Youtube to watch stuff" built up. It would have to build a new user base from scratch, which means it would be in a worse position compared to the current competition (which at least has a few users, if not an equal market position).
And perhaps the answer is that you don't get to have a massive audience for your work. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee that people will listen to you, or that you can make a profitable business out of your speech.
YouTube is no different than FoxNews of CNN or MSNBC pushing anchors off air or forcing them to modify their message when advertisers drop out because they don't like what is being said.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.
But that already exists. If a new company starts with a more favorable user agreement I can click "upload" and immediately have all of my content there (well, at least as fast as my ISP will transfer the data).
Not in the practical sense. Youtube is the only real game in town if you want a platform which people will actually look at your videos on.
They are the only saloon in town worth much.
Thete far more massive than any rival and even then youtube does not make much money. It costs a lot to run and nets less than the likes of Google or other sub sections.
Also it's not just uploads. The algorithm ans suggested content systems are extremely complicated and built by some very clever, very very well paid software engineers.
d-usa wrote: Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.
Why do you think Google is a search engine?
This question is confusing me.... they are a search engine. their whole thing is search engines and search engine accessories. algorithms is pretty much the primary focus iirc.
Algorithms is also youtubes entire thing. no one working at youtube even knows how it works let alone can put any input or alter what it does outside of changing a perimeters.
Google has a search engine.
Also, they have an email client called Gmail. They have an ad network that used to be called Doubleclick. They have a video platform called YouTube. They have a news aggregator called Google News. They have a calendar and invite service called Google Calendar. They have a contact service called Google Contacts. They have a video call service called Google Hangouts. You may have heard of some of these.
The problem with needless pedantry is you might be hoist upon your own petard: more specifically, D-USA is right. Google is the search engine product, Alphabet, Inc is the company.
Grey Templar wrote: Also, you don't have to only engage in deliberate anti-competitive behavior to be found in violation. Youtube's size alone and dominance of the video streaming 'market' would allow for them to be seen as a Monopoly even if they did nothing to actively discourage competition.
0
Side note: this is a common belief but it's not correct. It's lawful to have a monopoly, but it's unlawful to leverage a monopoly uncompetitively. The textbook example of this would be Microsoft, which wasn't in trouble for having essentially a monopoly on the OS market, but for tying their browser to the OS to harm Netscape.
d-usa wrote: Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.
Why do you think Google is a search engine?
This question is confusing me.... they are a search engine. their whole thing is search engines and search engine accessories. algorithms is pretty much the primary focus iirc.
Algorithms is also youtubes entire thing. no one working at youtube even knows how it works let alone can put any input or alter what it does outside of changing a perimeters.
Google has a search engine.
Also, they have an email client called Gmail. They have an ad network that used to be called Doubleclick. They have a video platform called YouTube. They have a news aggregator called Google News. They have a calendar and invite service called Google Calendar. They have a contact service called Google Contacts. They have a video call service called Google Hangouts. You may have heard of some of these.
The problem with needless pedantry is you might be hoist upon your own petard: more specifically, D-USA is right. Google is the search engine product, Alphabet, Inc is the company.
The structure of the holding company is listed clearly. Outside the medical and driverless car stuff, everything I mentioned is part of Google, Inc.
All of which is besides the point. If you define the industry as being what Google does, it has a huge monopolistic influence over what people throughout the world see and hear. They paid $2.7 billion in relation to the 2013 anti-trust case, which is not actually settled.
I'm glad that when people tell me to "google" something, they are not telling me to conduct an internet search. Instead they have been trying to help me by telling me to form a giant company involved in every aspect of every person currently alive.
d-usa wrote: I'm glad that when people tell me to "google" something, they are not telling me to conduct an internet search. Instead they have been trying to help me by telling me to form a giant company involved in every aspect of every person currently alive.
Since "google" isn't a search engine.
When you sneeze, do you want me to hand you a paper goods manufacturer?
Don't be deliberately obtuse. You wouldn't stand for it if someone else was playing that game with you.
d-usa wrote: I'm glad that when people tell me to "google" something, they are not telling me to conduct an internet search. Instead they have been trying to help me by telling me to form a giant company involved in every aspect of every person currently alive.
Since "google" isn't a search engine.
When you sneeze, do you want me to hand you a paper goods manufacturer?
Don't be deliberately obtuse. You wouldn't stand for it if someone else was playing that game with you.
If you think I'm the one being obtuse, then you should read the thread.
So... It's been like...
3 Pages... Since we mentioned the actual topic of the thread. Unless we're just counting the word 'Youtube' and not in the context it was orginally given [IE, a Physical location where shots were fired and people were killed.]
Breotan wrote: This type of insipid, off topic back and forth is why interesting threads get closed by the Mods.
Don't worrying, there will be another mass shooting within a few days and we can try to do better.
The discussion of youtube demonetizing videos, which is apparently the shooters main motivation for the shooting, seems pretty damn topical to me, though.
Only the shooter died in the Youtube shooting, so TBH I'd be surprised if this was discussed at all within 2 or 3 days really. If it weren't at Youtube's office it wouldn't even be a news story at all.
You continually hear about the latter... rather than the former.
Parkland had a resource officer as well, if I remember right.
So yeah, you don't hear about it. But I almost wager that the "pro-more cops in schools" site also has a vested interest in keeping quiet on the subject as well.
You continually hear about the latter... rather than the former.
This is day 2 of the YouTube shooting and it doesn't look like it'll garner the same sort of reactions as the Parkland shooting.
For that matter: The Las Vegas shooting sure as hell dropped off the map eh?
Need to search engine research it (lol!) for verification...bit I swore i read somewhere that the Maryland shooter actually managed to kill themselves, and it wasnt the shot from the SRO.
You continually hear about the latter... rather than the former.
This is day 2 of the YouTube shooting and it doesn't look like it'll garner the same sort of reactions as the Parkland shooting.
For that matter: The Las Vegas shooting sure as hell dropped off the map eh?
Need to search engine research it (lol!) for verification...bit I swore i read somewhere that the Maryland shooter actually managed to kill themselves, and it wasnt the shot from the SRO.
When confronted by the SRO the Maryland shooter killed himself rather than engage in a gunfight with somebody who could shoot back. Contrast that to Parkland where the SRO never entered the building until after the shooter had already murdered 17 people and left school grounds.
Grey Templar wrote:I understand that and it does make sense. But I don't think that should be the case. If you become large enough that you have the lions share, your content has become a public space.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony...
The bolded part requires the individual in question to have deliberately tried to become a monopoly, but the underlined part does not require intent. It can be enforced simply because the individual in question became a monopoly, even if it wasn't be any specific design on their part. Youtube could be seen as a monopoly because they have no competitors.
As for what breaking Youtube's Monopoly up would look like, it would likely just consist of duplicating Youtube and all of its videos to make 2 new Streaming sites with different domain names and forcing Google to sell one of them to another company. The company google kept would remain Youtube and the new one would be named something else.
The problem here is that youtube doesn't have a monopoly. They have a big chunk but there are many other sites that offer the same service. One interesting question—even if that duplicate site were implemented somehow—would be: Who pays for bandwidth and hosting of that second site? Should Google pay for that or would be it a new company?
Grey Templar wrote:Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.
As mentioned up the page, the future probably is for video hosting sites to become more specialized. Not be generic hosting like youtube is now. So gun videos would have their own site, gaming streaming would have its own site, etc...
Which just kinda makes it bizarre that youtube is banning gun videos. Why not just put advertisers who are ok with being on gun videos only on their videos?
So that new site would be like any other new (or old) site that provides video hosting for users? Or is the idea here that Google would pay for both, the old youtube and the new site that allows "freer speech"? Why not just use one of the existing sites? I think what you are actually looking for is a web browser. It can be used to upload your videos to any number of sites that are competing with youtube, you can also use to to watch videos on all those sites.
If you want complete control over your content then upload it to your own site and distribute it via the bittorrent protocol (to save bandwidth). When you choose to host your content on youtube you are making tradeoffs. They don't like certain content (illegal stuff, plus some more) and they have also restricted where their advertises get shown (rather clumsily at times) as those advertises, for example, might not want to associate their products with Alex Jones and similar types of idiots. And because they are paying youtube money for that privilege they get preferred treatment.
Related video (more about youtube competitors although it also addresses problems youtube has, and the sentiment applies to all platforms you don't control): Platforms aren't your friend
