10 ms·
YouTube makes the argument that they can ban unpopular, but legal speech because they're a private company, so why can't carriers throttle them because they are
by narrator 8y ago
YouTube makes the argument that they can ban unpopular, but legal speech because they're a private company, so why can't carriers throttle them because they are private companies?
The carriers are regulated monopolies, but Youtube is an unregulated monopoly. One is under the jurisdiction of the government, the other is free to ban whomever they want whenever they want.
- ric2b 8y agoYouTube isn't a monopoly, their competition is one click away. ISP's are often regional monopolies or even if they're not, the switching costs are large and usually involve breaking a 2-year exclusivity agreement. I do think that YouTube shouldn't be censoring content based on political views, but it's also not at all comparable to an ISP.
- xienze 8y ago> YouTube isn't a monopoly, their competition is one click away. The mere existence of competitors does not preclude one from having a monopoly.
- mrep 8y agoBy definition, it does "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
- EduardoBautista 8y agoCall them a de facto monopoly then.
- izacus 8y agoDefending one anti-consumer shitty practice with another will not improve either of the situations. The end result is that you now live in a shitty situation where your company isn't providing you the service performance you bought. Why on earth would you defend that?
- LeftTurnSignal 8y agoCapitalism is one reason people have told me. Then they bitch about their jobs going to a foreign country and really get offended when I use Capitalism back at them. I still don't know.