4 ms·

> 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 Youtub

> 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?
- joew42k 8y ago
  > Again, you're not refuting anything that anybody here actually thinks. And you aren't refuting what I said. How is this any different than a book publisher deciding what books to publish? Are you saying youtube and other websites should be forced to host content they don't agree with? Should HN be held to the same rules? How would that work?
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"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." And the way to get that is to start using the alternative sites. If everyone is going to continue to use YouTube to host their videos, nothings going to change.

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?

joew42k 8y ago
> Again, you're not refuting anything that anybody here actually thinks. And you aren't refuting what I said. How is this any different than a book publisher deciding what books to publish? Are you saying youtube and other websites should be forced to host content they don't agree with? Should HN be held to the same rules? How would that work?

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"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." And the way to get that is to start using the alternative sites. If everyone is going to continue to use YouTube to host their videos, nothings going to change.