5 ms·

Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website. Nobody's stopping makers of these videos from hosting the videos themselves.

Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website. Nobody's stopping makers of these videos from hosting the videos themselves. This is not censorship in the way we have traditionally understood. It only feels like it because Youtube is where the biggest audience is. It's the same whenever Facebook penalizes a post in the timeline, or whenever Google hides content from the search results. They feel like a the phone company or the post office - neutral platforms where people expect the right to free speech. In reality, they are publishers that exercise editorial discretion. If we had focused on building decentralized platforms with interoperability and open standards, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, you all wanted to make money. (Understandable) My proposal - the government should recognize that network effects produce defacto monopolies, and use existing anti-trust law to break up these behemoth platforms, or force regulation on them. In the mean time, I'll shout "i told you so" from my lonely, facebookless, linux-powered compound.

vertexFarm 8y ago
There should be a social network for lonely, security-obsessed linux people who refuse to partake in social media. Maybe we should start raising homing pigeons and send little notes to each other. I need to get my ham license one of these days.
- joew42k 8y ago
  Not until we can have independent audits of the pigeons and the freedom to distribute forked pigeon breeds.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  > There should be a social network for lonely, security-obsessed linux people who refuse to partake in social media. Where do you think you are? ;)
- jdietrich 8y ago
  I'm sure you'll get on famously with Diaspora's user.
- iamnothere 8y ago
  Mastodon, steemit, maidsafe, and all the other stuff built on distributed networks. This stuff is out there, but it will die off if people don't use it and improve it. A ham license is a great idea given where things are headed. Might even be worthwhile to set up a functional sneakernet among friends as a hobby. Something like FidoNet over USB sticks?
JackCh 8y ago
The "my preferred definition of censorship specifies that it can only be done by governments, and [company] is not a government" rhetoric that always appears with these sort of stories is truly tiring and pedantic. Nobody here thinks that youtube is a government. The problem isn't people thinking that youtube is a government; the problem is people thinking that censorship is something only a government can do, or thinking that because censorship is legal (when done by corporations) people shouldn't complain when it happens. Many things that are legal are worth complaining about. With regard to the rest of your comment, I'm not confident breaking up the google 'monopoly' would actually solve this problem. If you spun youtube off as its own company distinct from the rest of google, wouldn't it still have a virtual monopoly on this user-uploaded online video space? How would you actually solve that? Split youtube itself into several "Baby Youtubes"? How would that work, which one would get the domain name?
- joew42k 8y ago
  > the problem is people thinking that censorship is something only a government can do, It's not. Private companies can attempt to silence people. But Youtube isn't preventing the creators from hosting content elsewhere. They aren't hitting them with a slapp lawsuit. They aren't colluding with other websites to ban these videos. Youtube is just saying "host these somewhere else." How is that different from a publishing company choosing not to publish a book? Well it is a little different. For the reason I mentioned in my post. Because youtube is the only game in town. > I'm not confident breaking up the google 'monopoly' would actually solve this problem. The problem, in my eyes, is that youtube can ban you, and there is no alternative place to host your videos with the same level of exposure. Having a competitive market place would solve this problem, and give video hosting sites an incentive to treat creators fairly.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    >"But Youtube isn't preventing the creators from hosting content elsewhere. They aren't hitting them with a slapp lawsuit. They aren't colluding with other websites to ban these videos." Again, you're not refuting anything that anybody here actually thinks. >"Well it is a little different. For the reason I mentioned in my post. Because youtube is the only game in town." Exactly, which is why the devil's advocate routine is so tiring. >"The problem, in my eyes, is that youtube can ban you, and there is no alternative place to host your videos with the same level of exposure. Having a competitive market place would solve this problem, and give video hosting sites an incentive to treat creators fairly." I agree, but how could that actually be accomplished? If the government split up google/youtube like they split Bell, what would go to who? Would one of the Baby Youtube's get the "youtube" domain/brand? Or could they all? Would youtube.com just give you a "web portal" that impartially linked to all the various Baby Youtubes that were created by fracturing youtube? Would third party video websites unrelated to the youtube breakup get a place on that web portal?
amelius 8y ago
> Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website. A big chunk of our culture is hosted by that company. Not sure if that makes a difference, but imho, it should.
- joew42k 8y ago
  It totally does. Why is such a big chunk of our culture is hosted by a private company?
  - btreecat 8y ago
    You answered your own question > Instead, you all wanted to make money. (Understandable) There isn't as much margin in self hosting and dumb pipes
  - Crash0v3rid3 8y ago
    I guess because people chose to upload it there. We can’t stop people from going to YouTube, that’s where the audience is. It’s a bit concerning that you mention being hosted by a “private” company. Would you prefer the government hosting this data?
    - klez 8y ago
      There's not just "private company" and "the government". There's "informal group", "association of people", "single person hosting their own stuff". In the world I dream of, I could easily (and "easily" is the key word wrt the fact we're not there yet) host my own stuff and it would be visible to other people without a company or a government as intermediaries (except maybe for infrastructure, but that's something that can be solved, in the abstract, by mesh networks). Of course we're not even close to having that, but the point is we should (IMHO) point our efforts in that direction. Is there money there? I don't know. Should I care there is no money there? I'm not sure.
samlevine 8y ago
IANAL, but my non-expert understanding is that exercising editorial control (as opposed to just having site standards and censoring content that violates them) makes websites liable for content infringement.
CivilEngineer 8y ago
If they're taking it down because of Government pressure or exposure to government litigation then it is censorship, even by your very limited definition
throwaway84742 8y ago
> Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website The oft overlooked caveat to this line of thought is: we don’t have to like it.

vertexFarm 8y ago

There should be a social network for lonely, security-obsessed linux people who refuse to partake in social media. Maybe we should start raising homing pigeons and send little notes to each other. I need to get my ham license one of these days.

joew42k 8y ago
Not until we can have independent audits of the pigeons and the freedom to distribute forked pigeon breeds.
Analemma_ 8y ago
> There should be a social network for lonely, security-obsessed linux people who refuse to partake in social media. Where do you think you are? ;)
jdietrich 8y ago
I'm sure you'll get on famously with Diaspora's user.
iamnothere 8y ago
Mastodon, steemit, maidsafe, and all the other stuff built on distributed networks. This stuff is out there, but it will die off if people don't use it and improve it. A ham license is a great idea given where things are headed. Might even be worthwhile to set up a functional sneakernet among friends as a hobby. Something like FidoNet over USB sticks?

JackCh 8y ago

The "my preferred definition of censorship specifies that it can only be done by governments, and [company] is not a government" rhetoric that always appears with these sort of stories is truly tiring and pedantic. Nobody here thinks that youtube is a government. The problem isn't people thinking that youtube is a government; the problem is people thinking that censorship is something only a government can do, or thinking that because censorship is legal (when done by corporations) people shouldn't complain when it happens. Many things that are legal are worth complaining about. With regard to the rest of your comment, I'm not confident breaking up the google 'monopoly' would actually solve this problem. If you spun youtube off as its own company distinct from the rest of google, wouldn't it still have a virtual monopoly on this user-uploaded online video space? How would you actually solve that? Split youtube itself into several "Baby Youtubes"? How would that work, which one would get the domain name?

joew42k 8y ago
> the problem is people thinking that censorship is something only a government can do, It's not. Private companies can attempt to silence people. But Youtube isn't preventing the creators from hosting content elsewhere. They aren't hitting them with a slapp lawsuit. They aren't colluding with other websites to ban these videos. Youtube is just saying "host these somewhere else." How is that different from a publishing company choosing not to publish a book? Well it is a little different. For the reason I mentioned in my post. Because youtube is the only game in town. > I'm not confident breaking up the google 'monopoly' would actually solve this problem. The problem, in my eyes, is that youtube can ban you, and there is no alternative place to host your videos with the same level of exposure. Having a competitive market place would solve this problem, and give video hosting sites an incentive to treat creators fairly.
- JackCh 8y ago
  >"But Youtube isn't preventing the creators from hosting content elsewhere. They aren't hitting them with a slapp lawsuit. They aren't colluding with other websites to ban these videos." Again, you're not refuting anything that anybody here actually thinks. >"Well it is a little different. For the reason I mentioned in my post. Because youtube is the only game in town." Exactly, which is why the devil's advocate routine is so tiring. >"The problem, in my eyes, is that youtube can ban you, and there is no alternative place to host your videos with the same level of exposure. Having a competitive market place would solve this problem, and give video hosting sites an incentive to treat creators fairly." I agree, but how could that actually be accomplished? If the government split up google/youtube like they split Bell, what would go to who? Would one of the Baby Youtube's get the "youtube" domain/brand? Or could they all? Would youtube.com just give you a "web portal" that impartially linked to all the various Baby Youtubes that were created by fracturing youtube? Would third party video websites unrelated to the youtube breakup get a place on that web portal?

amelius 8y ago

> Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website. A big chunk of our culture is hosted by that company. Not sure if that makes a difference, but imho, it should.

joew42k 8y ago
It totally does. Why is such a big chunk of our culture is hosted by a private company?
- btreecat 8y ago
  You answered your own question > Instead, you all wanted to make money. (Understandable) There isn't as much margin in self hosting and dumb pipes
- Crash0v3rid3 8y ago
  I guess because people chose to upload it there. We can’t stop people from going to YouTube, that’s where the audience is. It’s a bit concerning that you mention being hosted by a “private” company. Would you prefer the government hosting this data?
  - klez 8y ago
    There's not just "private company" and "the government". There's "informal group", "association of people", "single person hosting their own stuff". In the world I dream of, I could easily (and "easily" is the key word wrt the fact we're not there yet) host my own stuff and it would be visible to other people without a company or a government as intermediaries (except maybe for infrastructure, but that's something that can be solved, in the abstract, by mesh networks). Of course we're not even close to having that, but the point is we should (IMHO) point our efforts in that direction. Is there money there? I don't know. Should I care there is no money there? I'm not sure.

samlevine 8y ago

IANAL, but my non-expert understanding is that exercising editorial control (as opposed to just having site standards and censoring content that violates them) makes websites liable for content infringement.

CivilEngineer 8y ago

If they're taking it down because of Government pressure or exposure to government litigation then it is censorship, even by your very limited definition

throwaway84742 8y ago

> Youtube is a private company and can do whatever they want with their own website The oft overlooked caveat to this line of thought is: we don’t have to like it.