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.
2018/04/04 19:55:50
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
Since "google" isn't a search engine.
2018/04/04 20:53:53
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
2018/04/04 21:47:27
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.]
Way to go, guys.
Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder.
2018/04/04 21:47:36
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 21:48:31
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2018/04/04 21:50:44
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2018/04/04 21:57:25
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2018/04/04 21:59:49
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
You continually hear about the latter... rather than the former.
One of those stories has 17 dead kids. The other one has 2 injured, and a dead shooter. It's not rocket appliances, Julian.
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?
I suspect the location and the identity of the shooter are the most interesting things about this classic disgruntled workplace shooting incident.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2018/04/04 22:08:21
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2018/04/04 22:45:22
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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
2018/04/04 22:56:49
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
