4 ms·

And, Government has right to break up monopolies. I now fully support breaking up Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft; may be Apple. Executives at publicly

And, Government has right to break up monopolies. I now fully support breaking up Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft; may be Apple. Executives at publicly traded companies have no right to enforce their individual political views as company policies. They are not privately held companies, they are public companies who are held at higher standards of equal treatment to all. What if Bic and Mead said you can't write a opinion that we don't like using our pen and notebooks? What if US Postal Service said you can't send a snail mail if it contains references to UPS or FedEx?

crusso 9y ago
And, Government has right to break up monopolies Youtube is successful and even dominates the space, but is not a monopoly. There are other video hosting services that can be accessed by anyone. You can start your own if you think there's a need. The fact is that people like Youtube. Monopolies have a specific lock on their customers or their supply of a limited resource. That's why people are okay with breaking them up. Not just because they're really popular and successful. What if Bic and Mead said you can't write a opinion that we don't like using our pen and notebooks? Bic and Mead don't host your content. You buy their tools to create your own content and then publish it yourself, give it out yourself on media you paid for, etc. What if US Postal Service said you can't send a snail mail if it contains references to UPS or FedEx? The USPS is a government-supported entity. Special rules apply for entities that have government laws behind just them. If a delivery entity opened your packages to evaluate content, that would present an entirely different sent of problems for them and their customers - because the content is private. Youtube videos are public. That's the point. Youtube has determined for their own reasons that extremist content hurts their business model.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >Bic and Mead don't host your content. You buy their tools to create your own content and then publish it yourself, give it out yourself on media you paid for, etc. The people who bought into YouTube as a platform, the content creators and their followers, paid for by their time and watching ads into the platform. Remember, when you are not paying for the service, you are the product. The people who adopted into YouTube platform paid for it's success. YouTube was sanctuary when Facebook and Twitter were cracking down on Free Speech. Now, YouTube changing their position is clear bait and switch. You allowed people to use the platform till you are successful, taking their time and energy to drive your ad revenue, now you are cracking down on content you don't like. It is true that it will be relatively easy in this day and age, to secure funding outside of YouTube Ad revenue and host content yourself. Startups will start doing just that. YouTube will look at this moment in time where the executive's individual political preferences were turned into company policy, destroying shareholder value. >Monopolies have a specific lock on their customers or their supply of a limited resource. YouTube changes are bait and switch on content creators and consumers who made the platform successful. DeMonetizing someone overnight after years of efforts into the platform and acquiring followers is extreme power held by a corporation. >If a delivery entity opened your packages to evaluate content, that would present an entirely different sent of problems for them and their customers - because the content is private. My argument precisely for Net Neutrality. :-) Don't look at content, I bought data transfer, ISP should just forward it on using internet routing rules, just like Post Office does.
  - crusso 9y ago
    paid for by their time and watching ads The ads pay for the content you watch at the time. It doesn't pay for your right to dictate the terms of their service in perpetuity. Thus, this whole line of thinking is a non-starter. Further, YT is not required to support whatever business model you build on top of theirs unless they've agreed to a contract of some sort. Do you know of such a contract? destroying shareholder value Maybe so, but their rationale at the moment is that extremist videos create a hostile environment for their users. They would rather not perpetually expose their preferred users to the toxicity of extremism. It's arguably a move to increase shareholder value. If you think they're wrong, don't be a shareholder.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      The content policy has changed following political ideology. Now content that does not violate any terms of conditions if also getting removed/demonetized, again following political ideology. You are focused on Google being able to do what they are doing, I agree, they are quite within their rights to do so. But, I see this situation same as a Github project uses Apache license to begin, to get adopters, to get eyes that find and resolve bugs, eyes that ask for much wanted features, after being successful the project changes to AGPL or Propitiatory closed-source license selling Enterprise Edition. This is slap in the face of people who gave time to the project. Anyone who spends time in modern software industry, like an user on hacker news, would clearly see the similarities between the YouTube situation and bait-and-switch on license for successful open source software.
ComodoHacker 9y ago
>I now fully support breaking up Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft; may be Apple. OTOH, only their shitloads of money allow them to resist government demands to hack a user's phone or hand over users' data in their cloud. Every cloud has a silver lining.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > only their shitloads of money allow them to resist government demands to hack a user's phone Their extreme centralization makes it much easier for the government to make those demands. I think you're more right than wrong, though.
- greenyoda 9y ago
  Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Apple were all participants in the NSA's PRISM surveillance program that Edward Snowden disclosed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Media_disclosure_of_PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#M...
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Government changes, at least every eight years. The fiefdoms of AFGAM are there for pretty much life.
macintux 9y ago
When you find something Apple has a monopoly on, you might have a point there. The only monopoly they've ever had is on taste, and for a short period of time I suppose you could argue MP3 players.
- jonex 9y ago
  Devices capable of running apps designed for IOS. Selling native apps to iPhone users. Charging users within native apps for IOS.
  - macintux 9y ago
    I suggest you re-read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolization. Defining a market as "the products Apple sells" for the purpose of determining that Apple has a monopoly on that market is irrational. The iPhone is one competitor in the smartphone market. Apple clearly lacks a monopoly.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  iMessage

crusso 9y ago

And, Government has right to break up monopolies Youtube is successful and even dominates the space, but is not a monopoly. There are other video hosting services that can be accessed by anyone. You can start your own if you think there's a need. The fact is that people like Youtube. Monopolies have a specific lock on their customers or their supply of a limited resource. That's why people are okay with breaking them up. Not just because they're really popular and successful. What if Bic and Mead said you can't write a opinion that we don't like using our pen and notebooks? Bic and Mead don't host your content. You buy their tools to create your own content and then publish it yourself, give it out yourself on media you paid for, etc. What if US Postal Service said you can't send a snail mail if it contains references to UPS or FedEx? The USPS is a government-supported entity. Special rules apply for entities that have government laws behind just them. If a delivery entity opened your packages to evaluate content, that would present an entirely different sent of problems for them and their customers - because the content is private. Youtube videos are public. That's the point. Youtube has determined for their own reasons that extremist content hurts their business model.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>Bic and Mead don't host your content. You buy their tools to create your own content and then publish it yourself, give it out yourself on media you paid for, etc. The people who bought into YouTube as a platform, the content creators and their followers, paid for by their time and watching ads into the platform. Remember, when you are not paying for the service, you are the product. The people who adopted into YouTube platform paid for it's success. YouTube was sanctuary when Facebook and Twitter were cracking down on Free Speech. Now, YouTube changing their position is clear bait and switch. You allowed people to use the platform till you are successful, taking their time and energy to drive your ad revenue, now you are cracking down on content you don't like. It is true that it will be relatively easy in this day and age, to secure funding outside of YouTube Ad revenue and host content yourself. Startups will start doing just that. YouTube will look at this moment in time where the executive's individual political preferences were turned into company policy, destroying shareholder value. >Monopolies have a specific lock on their customers or their supply of a limited resource. YouTube changes are bait and switch on content creators and consumers who made the platform successful. DeMonetizing someone overnight after years of efforts into the platform and acquiring followers is extreme power held by a corporation. >If a delivery entity opened your packages to evaluate content, that would present an entirely different sent of problems for them and their customers - because the content is private. My argument precisely for Net Neutrality. :-) Don't look at content, I bought data transfer, ISP should just forward it on using internet routing rules, just like Post Office does.
- crusso 9y ago
  paid for by their time and watching ads The ads pay for the content you watch at the time. It doesn't pay for your right to dictate the terms of their service in perpetuity. Thus, this whole line of thinking is a non-starter. Further, YT is not required to support whatever business model you build on top of theirs unless they've agreed to a contract of some sort. Do you know of such a contract? destroying shareholder value Maybe so, but their rationale at the moment is that extremist videos create a hostile environment for their users. They would rather not perpetually expose their preferred users to the toxicity of extremism. It's arguably a move to increase shareholder value. If you think they're wrong, don't be a shareholder.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    The content policy has changed following political ideology. Now content that does not violate any terms of conditions if also getting removed/demonetized, again following political ideology. You are focused on Google being able to do what they are doing, I agree, they are quite within their rights to do so. But, I see this situation same as a Github project uses Apache license to begin, to get adopters, to get eyes that find and resolve bugs, eyes that ask for much wanted features, after being successful the project changes to AGPL or Propitiatory closed-source license selling Enterprise Edition. This is slap in the face of people who gave time to the project. Anyone who spends time in modern software industry, like an user on hacker news, would clearly see the similarities between the YouTube situation and bait-and-switch on license for successful open source software.

ComodoHacker 9y ago

>I now fully support breaking up Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft; may be Apple. OTOH, only their shitloads of money allow them to resist government demands to hack a user's phone or hand over users' data in their cloud. Every cloud has a silver lining.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> only their shitloads of money allow them to resist government demands to hack a user's phone Their extreme centralization makes it much easier for the government to make those demands. I think you're more right than wrong, though.
greenyoda 9y ago
Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Apple were all participants in the NSA's PRISM surveillance program that Edward Snowden disclosed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Media_disclosure_of_PRISM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#M...
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Government changes, at least every eight years. The fiefdoms of AFGAM are there for pretty much life.

macintux 9y ago

When you find something Apple has a monopoly on, you might have a point there. The only monopoly they've ever had is on taste, and for a short period of time I suppose you could argue MP3 players.

jonex 9y ago
Devices capable of running apps designed for IOS. Selling native apps to iPhone users. Charging users within native apps for IOS.
- macintux 9y ago
  I suggest you re-read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolization. Defining a market as "the products Apple sells" for the purpose of determining that Apple has a monopoly on that market is irrational. The iPhone is one competitor in the smartphone market. Apple clearly lacks a monopoly.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
iMessage