Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't know that I would agree they are monopolies, and definitely not public utilties (water and instagram aren't good analogues)... but ,I would agree that they have been allowed too much integration and consolidation and should have pieces of their respective business broken up. Amazon also comes to mind pretty readily, for what it's worth.

Since I agree with where you're ending up, there's no reason to quibble about the directions we used to get there.

I feel like the cusp is that, a big part of why these services are so useful is that everyone uses them. It's kind of like my thought on operating systems. A single operating system used by everyone is arguably better for the market than a dozen. The operating system is fundamentally like paper. It's just there to facilitate the use of all the tools we're actually looking to use, tools that are easier to maintain, work with, and share when we're all working off the same basic medium.

In that way while water and Instagram are bad analogs in a 1 to 1 comparison, but in terms of how people use them and what they're doing on them, are they really that different?

I see this the same way as I see cable providers, ISPs, and operating systems. The market is arguably healthier when the fundamental networks we use are used widely. The problem is that the companies running these markets are a) greedy as feth, b) shady as feth, c) shockingly incompetent at times, and d) all of the above. It's an issue that needs to be resolved, and I think one of the more direct solutions is "you want your pseudo-monopolies fine, have them, but we're subjecting you to harsher oversight" at which point, are they really that different from a utility company? At the end of the day, as you say Ouze, Youtube is not a content creator. YouTube is a utility for sharing content. Likewise, Facebook is not a content creator. Nor is Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, etc etc. They are fundamentally utility services used by people to facilitate their own interests, so I'd propose it's more analogous than it might initially appear.

I mean, Youtube is only a monopoly in the sense that it makes content easier to reach.
There are TONS of alternatives, but they dont have the penetration youtube has. One of my favorite content creators, SFdebris, hosts his own videos. He does pretty well.
Monopolies mean no other options, you have options.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, Youtube is only a monopoly in the sense that it makes content easier to reach.
There are TONS of alternatives, but they dont have the penetration youtube has. One of my favorite content creators, SFdebris, hosts his own videos. He does pretty well.
Monopolies mean no other options, you have options.

Yeah, and you have other options than Windows, but Windows is still 87% of the market. It's the same thing with YouTube.

And I would call them psudo-monopolies rather than monopolies. Having competition that can't really compete with you might technically mean you have competition, but it's like saying I can compete with Mike Tyson in a boxing match. I can certainly try and might even get some punches in but I'm not winning so calling it a "competition" is a sham. It hinges on technicalities that ignore the underlying spirit of things.

So if we're breaking this down I'd say there are really 2 issues here;

1), multiple tech markets lack strong competition, and a single competitior effectively dominates the entire market (YouTube) or the market has separated itself into niches to avoid/minimize competition (Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc). This is an issue in tech, but its also observably a problem in pharma and telecommunications.

2), companies have arguably been allowed too much free reign to consolidate services. It makes prices cheaper when Comcast/Disney/Sony both owns the means of delivering online content and the means of generating that content, but it also stifles innovation in both markets when a small number of companies increasingly corner and consolidated multiple markets under a single banner.

I'd argue discriminating based on political affiliation should in ways be like discriminating based on religion since other than god they both share values, beliefs and lifestyle choices. A business shouldn't tell you that you can't work there or be a customer just because you're a religion and political affiliation should be the same way. Sadly tech companies seem to not do this.

Also what's the point in a company or private business not allowing some speech. I'd figure most things in the USA have to follow it's rules. I mean if people go to a channel on youtube and there's a viewer discretion thing or they know who they watch it's not like somebody is forcing your eyes open and strapping you to a chair to watch it. As far as extreme stuff goes the dark web still exists so even if you ban it on youtube the extremists still go somewhere. There are various sites too that could have extremists. I just imagine they'll still go somewhere.

@lordofhats: yeah it actually scares me how powerful some companies are getting. They need to be broken up significantly before they sink their claws too far into govt and prevent such a breakup to occur. I'm not entirely sure how multi national corporations work in this respect. Possibly the company's original starting country forces these terms. Makes sense given gw and their insane copyright issues *astra militarum* ugh.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I'd argue discriminating based on political affiliation should in ways be like discriminating based on religion since other than god they both share values, beliefs and lifestyle choices. A business shouldn't tell you that you can't work there or be a customer just because you're a religion and political affiliation should be the same way.

There is no way to respond to this without running afoul of the political discussion ban.

Oh perhaps I went too far. This topic does cross some boundaries that dip into the political so it's kinda hard to avoid it fully. I didn't say anything that was really for one political faction or another but I suppose some could disagree.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't know that I would agree they are monopolies, and definitely not public utilties (water and instagram aren't good analogues)... but ,I would agree that they have been allowed too much integration and consolidation and should have pieces of their respective business broken up. Amazon also comes to mind pretty readily, for what it's worth.

Since I agree with where you're ending up, there's no reason to quibble about the directions we used to get there.

One could classify it as a public forum of dialog. ergo classify as a question of free speech due to the vast ammount of people involved.
That would lead to issues but would also lead to an interesting debate.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

Also what's the point in a company or private business not allowing some speech.

Its good marketing is what it is. . . There are, if you have access behind academic journal paywalls, dozens, if not hundreds of articles that demonstrate how certain political views are anathema to civil discourse, democratic values, tolerance, etc. . . Any good company that wants to survive the next 5-10 years will distance themselves from those negative viewpoints. It's the exact reason why, when you see someone waving a literal swastika flag at some event, and that person is dumb enough to have their employer listed on their FB or LinkedIn profile, they typically lose their job, because that company does not in any way want to be seen as supporting negative viewpoints (in this instance, I'm talking negative from any point of view). There are still other studies that I've barely skimmed that demonstrate how, to your average consumer, people conflate an employee's action with company views. Essentially, if you're out wearing a walmart greeter vest and you're punching homeless people, people will automatically attach those actions to walmart, unless Walmart acts drastically by publicly firing that individual. In terms of this discussion, FB and YT and other platforms do not want to be seen as any one political affiliation, and they want to be seen as inclusive of all, so they "need" to take steps to be seen as inclusive (which does bring up the paradox of tolerance) and therefore they tend to overzealously enforce certain elements of the TOS.

To be fair, they're stuck in something of a catch 22.

ISIS recruits through Facebook, so people demand that Facebook ban groups like ISIS.

Facebook bans groups like ISIS, and then those same people (or other people) start complaining that they got banned.

There is no clear line on where one crosses from banning "absolutely unacceptable" to "mostly unacceptable" to "disgusting but not killing people by the thousands." This whole controversy creates something of a lose-lose. There's no way to win. No matter what they do, someone is going to be shouting that they've gone too far or haven't done enough.

Of course, sympathy gets harder to muster when their so stupid about it.

While it would be nice if "internet access" would be ruled a public utility, since it is not ruled as such, there is no real way to consider one site or sites on the internet a public utility. Or rather, you can, but it is nonsensical.

Also, while this new demonetization policy is fairly arbitrary and nonsensical, the thing is, if YouTube can't, in fact, monetize it themselves, why would one assume the end-user has a right to monetization?

If you make "unmarketable" stuff, under what auspices are we to consider you entitled to have YouTube subsidize your content with monetization they aren't getting?

Now, keep in mind, that is only if it is a fact that they are not capitalizing on marketing on those videos. Which is a totally different conversation, really. Unfortunately, we can't know, as a matter of facts, what the ad revenue is or is not for any videos.

In all likelihood, the algorithm is probably overly "aggressive" and was probably specifically made to be so. We'll just have to see if they pare it back, or just feel like it's worth it leave that content adrift. There is a hypothetical case for them, either way, business wise, so it likely comes down to what they feel is more lucrative.

LordofHats wrote:I feel like the cusp is that, a big part of why these services are so useful is that everyone uses them. It's kind of like my thought on operating systems. A single operating system used by everyone is arguably better for the market than a dozen. The operating system is fundamentally like paper. It's just there to facilitate the use of all the tools we're actually looking to use, tools that are easier to maintain, work with, and share when we're all working off the same basic medium.

In that way while water and Instagram are bad analogs in a 1 to 1 comparison, but in terms of how people use them and what they're doing on them, are they really that different?

A single operating system is better in certain ways but worse in others. Sure everybody gets to develop for only one platform but then the question becomes whose platform do your base all this on? And you still need slightly different versions for smartphone/tablet/PC/console/TV box/…

And the biggest issue is vulnerability. If you only have one OS then one bad bug can essentially cripple everything. That's why multiple — and different — operating systems tend to be safer overall. For security such a monoculture is really bad.

flamingkillamajig wrote: Also what's the point in a company or private business not allowing some speech. I'd figure most things in the USA have to follow it's rules.

In this case the "rules" are about protecting your from the government not from other people. That's kinda the big deal of the first amendment, isn't it? There are some additional rules protecting specific minorities (and for specific reasons and in specific ways) but that's it. As much as I agree that a handful on big tech companies wield too much power, your "solution" would kinda force them to host everything. How would you like it if somebody you don't agree with were allowed to host a dinner party in your home (at your cost)?

@mario: Generally the accepted idea is as long as your freedoms don't infringe on another's freedoms then you should be allowed to do what you want. Of course there have been issues about people who are gay being prevented a marriage license by Christians and vice versa with a wedding cake.

In the case of say facebook or twitter they shouldn't prevent a channel or page now that it's a huge public forum (well unless serious crime and violence is being talked about on there). The general idea of blocking to me is still fine. The idea is putting your hands to your ears to not hear something is different than putting your hand on someone's mouth so they can't talk. I try to listen as far as parties are willing to converse without much insult (a rare thing indeed) unless neither side convinces the other after a long time and the conversation becomes fruitless (pretty common).

'Freedom of speech' just means I can say what I want. It doesn't mean you have to listen to any of it or even be remotely in the same area.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


'Freedom of speech' just means I can say what I want.

Except when you cant. no screaming fire in a theater

and generally freedom of speech in the context of the USA means i can say whatever i want about the US government without repercussions from the government.

And while you can say whatever you want to some random citizen on the street or online form you are not free from private repercussion. otherwise slander liable and stuff like that wouldn't be a thing.

As to making Social media and the likes a regulated utility.. eh. it isnt really a thing that is necessary for the survival of the human race. its not food, not water, not a building, home, or road. its only purpose is as a source of entertainment. you have no real choice but to take your business elsewhere (though they really need to regulate the monopoly not the content.)

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Freedom of speech' just means I can say what I want. It doesn't mean you have to listen to any of it or even be remotely in the same area.

You have a deep, deep misunderstanding of how freedom of speech works in this country. In your defense, it now seems to be a pretty popular misconception.

 Desubot wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


'Freedom of speech' just means I can say what I want.

Except when you cant. no screaming fire in a theater

and generally freedom of speech in the context of the USA means i can say whatever i want about the US government without repercussions from the government.

And while you can say whatever you want to some random citizen on the street or online form you are not free from private repercussion. otherwise slander liable and stuff like that wouldn't be a thing.

As to making Social media and the likes a regulated utility.. eh. it isnt really a thing that is necessary for the survival of the human race. its not food, not water, not a building, home, or road. its only purpose is as a source of entertainment. you have no real choice but to take your business elsewhere (though they really need to regulate the monopoly not the content.)

Yeah but it's not like saying something should be a crime esp. if it was a joke and context mattered (yes that Pug on youtube).

Maybe social media isn't needed in a way like water but a long time ago neither was electricity. Now you need it for most things. In the case of social media you wouldn't need it but that's like saying a telephone isn't needed. I mean I don't need either but it makes life harder. For now social media isn't a huge issue but what if more essential things in our life have to be checked through social media to get employment or other things. What if we can be denied services or employment due to something we did on social media at one point.

As far as social platforms I don't see how someone can just find something you did 10 years ago and be able to fire or not hire you for it. You have to admit that's pretty ridiculous.

Getting a bit far afield of "YouTube Alternatives" here people.

 LordofHats wrote:

There is no clear line on where one crosses from banning "absolutely unacceptable" to "mostly unacceptable" to "disgusting but not killing people by the thousands." This whole controversy creates something of a lose-lose. There's no way to win. No matter what they do, someone is going to be shouting that they've gone too far or haven't done enough.

Of course, sympathy gets harder to muster when their so stupid about it.

While true, I'll give you an honest example that I'd testify in court to. . . I received a message from one of my dog owning friends about a group that was suggested to them because they owned a dog. This group was in every way shape and form, a dog fighting group. It was literally in the name, and they'd posted some of the most disturbing animal photos I think I've ever seen. And, we are NOT talking about a group of people who posted this stuff with the aim of shutting down dog fighting. No, this was promoting/recruiting and "enjoying" this terrible activity.

So, I did what most normal people would do, and I reported the page. First time it came back as "this page doesn't violate our community standards" . . . so, I responded to that, and I reported again. I think in the end, I had to report them 5 or 6 times myself, and I know my friend reported them at least once. IMHO, it was one of the most ridiculous processes of content that shouldn't be there that I've seen on that platform.

And in this particular instance, we're talking about an activity that is, by and large, illegal across the US, and afaik wasn't even really a "thing" in most European countries, so we're not talking about hazy areas of "freedom of speech", we're talking about something that is blatantly illegal.

So report them to the actual police instead of just reporting the videos to Farce-book.

The only decent non-Youtube video hosting services I know of really are Vimeo and Dailymotion.