22 ms·

People can theoretically switch from one social network to another, however taking their friends with them is less easy. If you make your living making videos

People can theoretically switch from one social network to another, however taking their friends with them is less easy. If you make your living making videos on YouTube, and want to move to another service, most of your audience isn't going to come along. Being able to publicly post your videos is pointless if nobody watches them.

dangoor 9y ago
I agree that it can be painful, but there are parallels that can be drawn. Dick's Sporting Goods just stopped selling certain kinds of guns. Those gun manufacturers can still sell their guns, but just not at Dick's, so they're losing part of their potential audience. There was a story a month or two ago about a publisher that went out of business because their whole business model (apparently) revolved around pushing their content on Facebook and then Facebook changed their newsfeed algorithm. I think that's a risk for anyone relying on a given channel for their product.
- juliangoldsmith 9y ago
  The difference is that those manufacturers can go to other stores to sell their products. YouTube is the only store that customers go to, so it's the only place you can actually sell your product at.
intopieces 9y ago
>Being able to publicly post your videos is pointless if nobody watches them The freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. Youtube is not the only seller of megaphones by the public square.
- juliangoldsmith 9y ago
  YouTube isn't the only seller of megaphones, but they're the only one that matters. When they have an effective monopoly on audience, network effects will make it impossible for anyone else to compete.
  - intopieces 9y ago
    They are the only one that matters because of superior products, innovation, or business acumen. Obtaining a monopoly in this way is legal [0]. The argument here seems to be that because "unpopular speech" is not being spread through the market-leader media site, that free speech is being restricted. This sounds really similar to the "Fairness Doctrine" [1], and has the same pitfalls: it forces businesses to devote their resources, risk their brand, and jeopardize their ad dollars to promote speech that their patrons disagree with. If YouTube were a government run enterprise using public money, absolutely -- everyone gets a megaphone. But YouTube's legal obligation is to shareholders and anything that forces them to act against that is not sound policy. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine [0]https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
    - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
      Those are fair points. By that logic, though, it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't be Net Neutrality regulation. Let's say Spectrum doesn't like a certain service, say, LiveLeak. We've established that a business shouldn't have to devote resources to promoting something that its shareholders disagree with. It would, then, be reasonable for it to refuse its customers access to LiveLeak, right?
      - intopieces 9y ago
        >By that logic, though, it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't be Net Neutrality regulation. The logic here depends on scale. YouTube is a service among services; ISPs are utilities that provide access to other services. It's much easier to set up your own video streaming website than it is to set up an ISP. As it stands, there no risk for ISPs with the content they carry, since their subscribers have no choice to leave them. They do not risk their brand or advertising dollars. That is why they ought to be neutral to the content they carry. If there comes a time in America where an ISP risks losing subscribers to their competitor because they allow LiveLeak or Porn or dragon ball z gifs, let 'em go wild with the filters.

dangoor 9y ago

I agree that it can be painful, but there are parallels that can be drawn. Dick's Sporting Goods just stopped selling certain kinds of guns. Those gun manufacturers can still sell their guns, but just not at Dick's, so they're losing part of their potential audience. There was a story a month or two ago about a publisher that went out of business because their whole business model (apparently) revolved around pushing their content on Facebook and then Facebook changed their newsfeed algorithm. I think that's a risk for anyone relying on a given channel for their product.

juliangoldsmith 9y ago
The difference is that those manufacturers can go to other stores to sell their products. YouTube is the only store that customers go to, so it's the only place you can actually sell your product at.

intopieces 9y ago

>Being able to publicly post your videos is pointless if nobody watches them The freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. Youtube is not the only seller of megaphones by the public square.

juliangoldsmith 9y ago
YouTube isn't the only seller of megaphones, but they're the only one that matters. When they have an effective monopoly on audience, network effects will make it impossible for anyone else to compete.
- intopieces 9y ago
  They are the only one that matters because of superior products, innovation, or business acumen. Obtaining a monopoly in this way is legal [0]. The argument here seems to be that because "unpopular speech" is not being spread through the market-leader media site, that free speech is being restricted. This sounds really similar to the "Fairness Doctrine" [1], and has the same pitfalls: it forces businesses to devote their resources, risk their brand, and jeopardize their ad dollars to promote speech that their patrons disagree with. If YouTube were a government run enterprise using public money, absolutely -- everyone gets a megaphone. But YouTube's legal obligation is to shareholders and anything that forces them to act against that is not sound policy. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine [0]https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
  - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
    Those are fair points. By that logic, though, it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't be Net Neutrality regulation. Let's say Spectrum doesn't like a certain service, say, LiveLeak. We've established that a business shouldn't have to devote resources to promoting something that its shareholders disagree with. It would, then, be reasonable for it to refuse its customers access to LiveLeak, right?
    - intopieces 9y ago
      >By that logic, though, it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't be Net Neutrality regulation. The logic here depends on scale. YouTube is a service among services; ISPs are utilities that provide access to other services. It's much easier to set up your own video streaming website than it is to set up an ISP. As it stands, there no risk for ISPs with the content they carry, since their subscribers have no choice to leave them. They do not risk their brand or advertising dollars. That is why they ought to be neutral to the content they carry. If there comes a time in America where an ISP risks losing subscribers to their competitor because they allow LiveLeak or Porn or dragon ball z gifs, let 'em go wild with the filters.