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 09:01:11
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/04 09:02:08
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2018/04/04 09:07:39
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 09:09:10
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/04 09:11:23
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2018/04/04 09:11:36
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 09:12:24
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/04 09:15:20
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.....
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2018/04/04 09:19:05
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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!
2018/04/04 09:30:44
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2018/04/04 10:42:25
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 10:44:09
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 11:07:38
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
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
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2018/04/04 16:15:09
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2018/04/04 16:31:24
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 16:54:38
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2018/04/04 17:04:34
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/04 17:07:10
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/04 17:08:55
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/04 17:11:15
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/04 17:13:28
2018/04/04 17:18:10
Subject: Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/04 17:27:03
Subject: Re:Shots fired near YouTube HQ in San Bruno, CA
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
