4 ms·

It is distinctly different because the government can fine me or imprison me if I violate their legal proscriptions. I can't opt out of those restrictions. If

by gwright 10y ago

It is distinctly different because the government can fine me or imprison me if I violate their legal proscriptions. I can't opt out of those restrictions. If Google blocks my content or otherwise refuses to host my content I have lots of other options. Your assertion that Google is a monopoly is this regard is not accurate.

ouid 10y ago
if my business is forfeit, because it operates on the platform that the government allows to be a monopoly which youtube absolutely is then it serves the same function as a fine, frankly it doesn't matter what my leverage is, as long as it works. More importantly this doesn't address the concept, which is that it's dumb to attach motive to the definition of a problem. It's important when assessing criminal liability, but if you're just using it as an excuse to ignore the detrimental effects of censorship, which haven't changed, just because the mechanisms have, then you're just being profoundly counterproductive.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > if my business is forfeit Forfeit is not the right word. Nobody is taking your business away from you, it's just not a profitable business. > monopoly which youtube absolutely is That is begging the question. There are plenty of sites that let you share video like youtube[0] [0] http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/ http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/
  - ouid 10y ago
    This is the same argument as the one against net neutrality. So if you your arguments are convincing to you here, then they should be there. If you own a platform on which other people do business which is a natural monopoly, you shouldn't be allowed to regulate the content on that platform. Youtube is a natural monopoly. It's fairly obvious that this is so, but I will elaborate anyway. The value of youtube is the number of people use the site. The number of people on the site encourages people to host their content on that site, more people hosting content on the site encourages more people to use the site. In this situation there will always be exactly one winner.
    - keymone 10y ago
      monopoly is not about being most popular service, it's about being the only supplier of some commodity or service. youtube is not the only supplier of video publishing service, hence it's not a monopoly. users can switch from youtube to another service easily. users can't easily (and sometimes at all) switch to a different internet provider, which is why net neutrality is important.
      - ouid 10y ago
        you clearly have no idea what a monopoly is.
        fox8091 10y ago
        The dictionary disagrees with you. http://bfy.tw/BBWT http://bfy.tw/BBWT
        fvdessen 10y ago
        The commodity that youtube sells is not only the ability to upload a video, it is the access to a network of viewers. It can be argued that due to youtube's network size relative to other video sharing website, it has a monopoly in that regard.
        keymone 10y ago
        i don't agree. plenty of videos are being watched on facebook, instagram, twitter, etc, not to mention all the asian clones. youtube just seems to be the most monetized platform for the time being, but i don't think it's anywhere near being monopoly in terms of access to users.
enraged_camel 10y ago
If the government censors you, you have other choices as well. You can publish your content in locations outside your government's jurisdiction. So basically your "imprisonment" qualification on the definition of censorship is completely arbitrary and does not stand up to critical scrutiny.
- AnOscelot 10y ago
  If your government censors you, and you break the censorship in some way, you put your own personal freedom and economic status at risk. In many countries, you put your own life at risk as well. If Google takes down my video, and I publish it elsewhere, there's no real risk of anything. Maybe I'll lose my Google account if the video was particularly heinous, but that's about as far as it goes. The imprisonment qualification is a very real difference.

by gwright 10y ago

ouid 10y ago

if my business is forfeit, because it operates on the platform that the government allows to be a monopoly which youtube absolutely is then it serves the same function as a fine, frankly it doesn't matter what my leverage is, as long as it works. More importantly this doesn't address the concept, which is that it's dumb to attach motive to the definition of a problem. It's important when assessing criminal liability, but if you're just using it as an excuse to ignore the detrimental effects of censorship, which haven't changed, just because the mechanisms have, then you're just being profoundly counterproductive.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> if my business is forfeit Forfeit is not the right word. Nobody is taking your business away from you, it's just not a profitable business. > monopoly which youtube absolutely is That is begging the question. There are plenty of sites that let you share video like youtube[0] [0] http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/ http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/
- ouid 10y ago
  This is the same argument as the one against net neutrality. So if you your arguments are convincing to you here, then they should be there. If you own a platform on which other people do business which is a natural monopoly, you shouldn't be allowed to regulate the content on that platform. Youtube is a natural monopoly. It's fairly obvious that this is so, but I will elaborate anyway. The value of youtube is the number of people use the site. The number of people on the site encourages people to host their content on that site, more people hosting content on the site encourages more people to use the site. In this situation there will always be exactly one winner.
  - keymone 10y ago
    monopoly is not about being most popular service, it's about being the only supplier of some commodity or service. youtube is not the only supplier of video publishing service, hence it's not a monopoly. users can switch from youtube to another service easily. users can't easily (and sometimes at all) switch to a different internet provider, which is why net neutrality is important.
    - ouid 10y ago
      you clearly have no idea what a monopoly is.
      - fox8091 10y ago
        The dictionary disagrees with you. http://bfy.tw/BBWT http://bfy.tw/BBWT
        fvdessen 10y ago
        The commodity that youtube sells is not only the ability to upload a video, it is the access to a network of viewers. It can be argued that due to youtube's network size relative to other video sharing website, it has a monopoly in that regard.
        keymone 10y ago
        i don't agree. plenty of videos are being watched on facebook, instagram, twitter, etc, not to mention all the asian clones. youtube just seems to be the most monetized platform for the time being, but i don't think it's anywhere near being monopoly in terms of access to users.

enraged_camel 10y ago

If the government censors you, you have other choices as well. You can publish your content in locations outside your government's jurisdiction. So basically your "imprisonment" qualification on the definition of censorship is completely arbitrary and does not stand up to critical scrutiny.

AnOscelot 10y ago
If your government censors you, and you break the censorship in some way, you put your own personal freedom and economic status at risk. In many countries, you put your own life at risk as well. If Google takes down my video, and I publish it elsewhere, there's no real risk of anything. Maybe I'll lose my Google account if the video was particularly heinous, but that's about as far as it goes. The imprisonment qualification is a very real difference.