5 ms·

> That is very easily said but practically impossible. It's very practical to say <content distributor> should not be able to buy <content creator>. Likewise,

> That is very easily said but practically impossible. It's very practical to say <content distributor> should not be able to buy <content creator>. Likewise, it is practical to say <web site> cannot favor their product in feeds, search, app stores, etc. over competitors. > Again, said very easily. Have you considered what that would mean? Sure. To the extent that open standards support types of media, it's a solved problem. Displaying <img> tags has been a thing for decades, for instance. <video> tags are a thing now, as well. Facebook could be previewing external video the same way they preview their own. But their business model is to try to gain market share in the streaming video market, live and otherwise.

Kalium 9y ago
To the extent that open standards support multimedia, you're absolutely right that Facebook could preview any video from any place on the internet. There might be some potential for minor security concerns around loading and serving big blobs of external data, but those are controllable. What might be of larger concern is the IP licensing aspect. Users uploading video and indemnifying Facebook against their dubious claims of ownership is questionable. It's possible that what you suggest might run afoul of copyright concerns, as well as the business model reasons you so correctly point to.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > What might be of larger concern is the IP licensing aspect. If that's the larger concern, then why isn't it a concern for text or images? Lots of photographers would love Facebook-enforced DRM for the wedding photos they haven't licensed. No, it makes more sense to assume the concern is pursuing consumer and creator lock-in through vertical integration.
  - Kalium 9y ago
    You are, obviously and of course, correct that Facebook stands to benefit from lock-in. Perhaps I fail to understand the IP issues correctly. Users uploading wedding photos to Facebook that they claim they have the rights to is in the same category, legally, as the videos that users claim they own the rights to. Both get the same (lack of) concern. That's my understanding, at least. Does your differ?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      On a legal level, you are correct. On a practical level, people are able to share text and image files without consequences while companies like facebook and google provide tools to detect and proactively police copyright infringement in audio and video files.
nickik 9y ago
You are missing my point. You are assuming a perfect regulater in your imagination. However this is not how the real word works. Do you remember all the democratic autrage about Net Neutrality. How everybody cried about how unfair it was. Who are actually the exact people that get to make these choices. How do you enforce fair proceedings? How do you handle appeal? How do you do all this without making it fundamentally undemocratic? Do you want a democratic vote to make these choices? Do you want the Senate as a whole to vote on these issues? How about a congressonal subcommity? Do you want a largly unsuprivised undemocratic burocracy to just make these chocie by fiat? The list of problems goes on. What is the legal bases for these effect and how do you punish people who don't follow the rules? How about the US not controlling the internet and if the US goes away from global standards it could massivly hurt the US as a industry standard. These are real conceptual issues that have caused many issues in many of these ideas that people have where they assume that 'if only I could make these choice the way I want, it would be better for everybody'. However the outcome that you imagine is probebly not the outcome you are gone get, specially if you don't think about these issues.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Do you want a democratic vote to make these choices? Do you want the Senate as a whole to vote on these issues? How about a congressional subcommittee? Do you want a largely unsupervised undemocratic bureaucracy to just make these choices by fiat? Hmm, well to me it seems like the that last option is the worst of the bunch. And that's what we get when we don't regulate at all - unsupervised, undemocratic, corporate bureaucracies making decisions that critically affect our lives. I don't need a perfect regulator, I just need a regulator because even in your worst case scenario for a regulator you've only tied what I already live under. To your net neutrality argument, your argument is essentially that instead of having a regulatory body in charge of net neutrality who then rescinded it, we should never have had that government body at all - to me that's just unconvincing, at least I got some years of net neutrality this way, better than none at all. The list of problems goes on. What is the legal bases for these effect and how do you punish people who don't follow the rules? How about the US not controlling the internet and if the US goes away from global standards it could massively hurt the US as a industry standard. Why do you need every detail of a plan to see if something is good? You want us to quote from law journals for you? Why don't you just admit you don't like the idea - don't pretend that if only we could lay out a plan you'd be for it, your disagreement isn't in implementation it's in foundation.

Kalium 9y ago

To the extent that open standards support multimedia, you're absolutely right that Facebook could preview any video from any place on the internet. There might be some potential for minor security concerns around loading and serving big blobs of external data, but those are controllable. What might be of larger concern is the IP licensing aspect. Users uploading video and indemnifying Facebook against their dubious claims of ownership is questionable. It's possible that what you suggest might run afoul of copyright concerns, as well as the business model reasons you so correctly point to.

humanrebar 9y ago
> What might be of larger concern is the IP licensing aspect. If that's the larger concern, then why isn't it a concern for text or images? Lots of photographers would love Facebook-enforced DRM for the wedding photos they haven't licensed. No, it makes more sense to assume the concern is pursuing consumer and creator lock-in through vertical integration.
- Kalium 9y ago
  You are, obviously and of course, correct that Facebook stands to benefit from lock-in. Perhaps I fail to understand the IP issues correctly. Users uploading wedding photos to Facebook that they claim they have the rights to is in the same category, legally, as the videos that users claim they own the rights to. Both get the same (lack of) concern. That's my understanding, at least. Does your differ?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    On a legal level, you are correct. On a practical level, people are able to share text and image files without consequences while companies like facebook and google provide tools to detect and proactively police copyright infringement in audio and video files.

nickik 9y ago

You are missing my point. You are assuming a perfect regulater in your imagination. However this is not how the real word works. Do you remember all the democratic autrage about Net Neutrality. How everybody cried about how unfair it was. Who are actually the exact people that get to make these choices. How do you enforce fair proceedings? How do you handle appeal? How do you do all this without making it fundamentally undemocratic? Do you want a democratic vote to make these choices? Do you want the Senate as a whole to vote on these issues? How about a congressonal subcommity? Do you want a largly unsuprivised undemocratic burocracy to just make these chocie by fiat? The list of problems goes on. What is the legal bases for these effect and how do you punish people who don't follow the rules? How about the US not controlling the internet and if the US goes away from global standards it could massivly hurt the US as a industry standard. These are real conceptual issues that have caused many issues in many of these ideas that people have where they assume that 'if only I could make these choice the way I want, it would be better for everybody'. However the outcome that you imagine is probebly not the outcome you are gone get, specially if you don't think about these issues.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Do you want a democratic vote to make these choices? Do you want the Senate as a whole to vote on these issues? How about a congressional subcommittee? Do you want a largely unsupervised undemocratic bureaucracy to just make these choices by fiat? Hmm, well to me it seems like the that last option is the worst of the bunch. And that's what we get when we don't regulate at all - unsupervised, undemocratic, corporate bureaucracies making decisions that critically affect our lives. I don't need a perfect regulator, I just need a regulator because even in your worst case scenario for a regulator you've only tied what I already live under. To your net neutrality argument, your argument is essentially that instead of having a regulatory body in charge of net neutrality who then rescinded it, we should never have had that government body at all - to me that's just unconvincing, at least I got some years of net neutrality this way, better than none at all. The list of problems goes on. What is the legal bases for these effect and how do you punish people who don't follow the rules? How about the US not controlling the internet and if the US goes away from global standards it could massively hurt the US as a industry standard. Why do you need every detail of a plan to see if something is good? You want us to quote from law journals for you? Why don't you just admit you don't like the idea - don't pretend that if only we could lay out a plan you'd be for it, your disagreement isn't in implementation it's in foundation.