7 ms·

I don't think any new platform is going to be able to compete with YouTube at all with the current regulations. How will any new platform comply with new EU cop

I don't think any new platform is going to be able to compete with YouTube at all with the current regulations. How will any new platform comply with new EU copyright laws, or remove unlawful videos as quickly as YouTube? (e.g the unfortunate New Zealand terrorist attack)

Mirioron 8y ago
They won't. I suspect that that kind of regulatory capture is the point of these laws in the first place.
- enitihas 8y ago
  I don't think so. Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. And it's not a completely unreasonable position.
  - 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
    You are right. Personally, I question how many people would support authoritarianism if we didn't have the regulatory capture environment we currently have. There is such a powerful system of indoctrination in the US. But then I think of experiments that deal with human nature. Of how 65%~ of people in the milgram experiment gave the dangerous shocks even while hearing people plea... It paints a picture of human nature I guess I want to blame on something 'out there' and not 'in here'.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. "Such unlawful videos." So basically, the government should be able to declare content "unlawful" and it's okay so long as public sentiment goes along with it? Basically, you've simply thrown out Free Speech. I can understand why someone would find the video of the shooting shocking. Personally, I've chosen not to view it. However, if Free Speech isn't an absolute right, then it's simply broken. Habeas corpus, the Presumption of Innocence, and due process -- what if the government could just suspend those things when it felt like it? Those human rights would simply be broken. The difference between a just society and an unjust one, is that the just society extends the same rights and protections to all its citizens, no infringements, no exceptions. A society with Free Speech extends the right of speech and the right to read/hear that speech to everyone without infringement as well. The interesting thing about the Weimar Republic, is that almost all of the laws covering human rights had an "out" for the government, allowing them to suspend the right, "for the common good" in emergency situations. As a result, the subsequent regime didn't have to change many laws to operate as a totalitarian regime.
    - enitihas 8y ago
      Nowhere did I say Government should be able to throw out free speech. I am just acknowledging what I have observed. If you think my observations are incorrect, please feel free to go through the relevant HN threads (e.g, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591) You will find a lot of comments saying such censorship is needed. I agree with you that free speech is important, and I think this contradiction between free speech and society trying to prevent the spread of radicalisation is an important question of our times.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. If certain radicals are really bad, then more Free Speech ultimately gets rid of them. Suppression just gives them more ammunition. This is the lesson from across just about all of history. In 2019, governments and big tech have essentially been tricked into replacing societal backlash against nonsense with societal backlash against suppression. What governments and big tech should be doing is protecting the integrity of speech. On a level playing field, Bad Actors will reveal themselves. It's on a tilted playing field where things dysfunction, and the crowd cries foul and declares the game invalid. In short, in 2019, for governments and big tech to have the Bad Actors fail, they need to stop doing end-runs around the law and principles of Human Rights. They need to stop giving ammunition to Bad Actors by being bad actors themselves.
        ABCLAW 8y ago
        >Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Maybe in the long-term social view of the issue you're right but on a platform by platform basis this doesn't seem to be the case.
        BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
        Sure, censoring racists on YouTube means less racists on YouTube. But it does NOT mean less racists in the world.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- kevingadd 8y ago
  A 3-step plan to achieve regulatory capture: 1. Fail to moderate and engineer your platform, it turns into a complete cesspool 2. Government is forced to step in 3. Easily comply with government regulations because you're massive, now it is impossible for anyone to compete with you
mindslight 8y ago
.. by said platform not being based on the broken-ass dns/http naming system, and thus not relying on centralized servers that provide a juicy targets for legal nastygrams. Then when governments want to censor, they'll have to go after the errant individuals themselves rather than getting centralized platforms to perform categorical a priori enforcement for them. What's happening to Youtube et al right now was inevitable - this was apparent to anyone with half a brain back when AJAX was a novel thing. But "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it", and that VC funded advertising pop culture party was a hell of a time. Unfortunately this centralized detour has made it so that the move to p2p methods is going to be a lot more violent. Lawlmakers have now been primed to being able to wave their magic wand to implement their whims, and will expect that ability to continue. When reality hits and it stops working again, they'll be hunting for individuals to blame and persecute.
AWildC182 8y ago
I think this might actually be a good thing long run. Regulation forces decentralization until you reach the equilibrium where playing whack-a-mole ceases to be cost effective. If YT didn't have regulatory capture, the easy answer would be another YT clone startup. Now the solution is a protocol rather than a platform. The protocol can't be made illegal because it's not inherently against the law but if someone uploads something illegal to their node/whatever, that's on them.
- dageshi 8y ago
  With very few exceptions the web has flown from decentralised to centralised because centralised is an easier user experience and allows monetisation for content creators, decentralised does not (or at least hasn't so far). Plus, the people bitching about their content removed from youtube don't want to just be able to upload to youtube they want youtube's audience, they in fact think they're entitled to youtube's audience.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    they in fact think they're entitled to youtube's audience. What they're objecting to, is that their audience continues to exist, and YouTube and other tech companies are throwing up barriers between them and their existing audience -- even to the point of refusing to process payments and otherwise doing things which look like possibly illegal collusion between companies. YouTube has captured the mainstream of all vlog commentary across all society, but they insist that they can continue to act like they're just a niche tech player. It's no different than a company in 1985 that had owned 85% of all the TV stations and Newspapers in the US. At some point, media companies get too big and too dominant over human discourse. At some point, media companies can get big enough to become a threat to Free Speech.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The protocol can't be made illegal because it's not inherently against the law but if someone uploads something illegal to their node/whatever, that's on them. Instead, such protocols can be marginalized through social means and through the media. On top of that, centralized alternatives can be hounded out of business and given the same treatment. YT doesn't have regulatory capture. They have effectively captured the lion's share of mainstream video commentary, with no apparent way for them to ever be replaced.
darkwizard42 8y ago
Is it a bad thing to make all new platforms have the ability to remove violating content as a base part of the platform? It means more investment in developing the tool, but I'd love to discuss more on why we think its okay that a "hot new" platform should be supported purely because it violates laws that the community deems important. ex. Lyft + Uber are an example I can think of where violation of existing laws was the only way to create innovation. Would love to hear more thoughts on how this might work with content/video companies
cowwithbeef 8y ago
I already prefer bitchute to youtube overall. Somehow they're staying alive. There's no need to get completely black pilled on the future of video hosting. We have hope.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
1) below a certain scale, they don't have to comply 2) if they make a good faith effort, at whatever level of expertise and resources they have, I belive they will be within the law. I dont think there is any specific legal requirement to do machine learning or any other specific implementation of content ID. I'd start with checksums, whatever level of flagging by hand I could afford, and go from there. As you scale you'll attract the attention of rights holders and need to spend more. But I would hope the courts would accept a good faith effort.
- gdhbcc 8y ago
  Your first point is objectively incorrect. The EU copyright laws apply to every website/company, the only difference is small companies/websites have 3 years to bring themselves into compliance.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    My first point is also objectively correct IF size and age are strongly correlated. Do you agree with that premise?
CM30 8y ago
Well, the answer depends on what kind of system it is. If its federated, by being split into such small pieces that the regulations don't really affect any particular one of them, since they're either unaffected or can remove content easily while washing their hands of what other people/communities say. If it's decentralised, by being literally impossible to shut down, block or go after users for using. That's always been the end goal for many of these systems.

Mirioron 8y ago

They won't. I suspect that that kind of regulatory capture is the point of these laws in the first place.

enitihas 8y ago
I don't think so. Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. And it's not a completely unreasonable position.
- 4ntonius8lock 8y ago
  You are right. Personally, I question how many people would support authoritarianism if we didn't have the regulatory capture environment we currently have. There is such a powerful system of indoctrination in the US. But then I think of experiments that deal with human nature. Of how 65%~ of people in the milgram experiment gave the dangerous shocks even while hearing people plea... It paints a picture of human nature I guess I want to blame on something 'out there' and not 'in here'.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. "Such unlawful videos." So basically, the government should be able to declare content "unlawful" and it's okay so long as public sentiment goes along with it? Basically, you've simply thrown out Free Speech. I can understand why someone would find the video of the shooting shocking. Personally, I've chosen not to view it. However, if Free Speech isn't an absolute right, then it's simply broken. Habeas corpus, the Presumption of Innocence, and due process -- what if the government could just suspend those things when it felt like it? Those human rights would simply be broken. The difference between a just society and an unjust one, is that the just society extends the same rights and protections to all its citizens, no infringements, no exceptions. A society with Free Speech extends the right of speech and the right to read/hear that speech to everyone without infringement as well. The interesting thing about the Weimar Republic, is that almost all of the laws covering human rights had an "out" for the government, allowing them to suspend the right, "for the common good" in emergency situations. As a result, the subsequent regime didn't have to change many laws to operate as a totalitarian regime.
  - enitihas 8y ago
    Nowhere did I say Government should be able to throw out free speech. I am just acknowledging what I have observed. If you think my observations are incorrect, please feel free to go through the relevant HN threads (e.g, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591) You will find a lot of comments saying such censorship is needed. I agree with you that free speech is important, and I think this contradiction between free speech and society trying to prevent the spread of radicalisation is an important question of our times.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. If certain radicals are really bad, then more Free Speech ultimately gets rid of them. Suppression just gives them more ammunition. This is the lesson from across just about all of history. In 2019, governments and big tech have essentially been tricked into replacing societal backlash against nonsense with societal backlash against suppression. What governments and big tech should be doing is protecting the integrity of speech. On a level playing field, Bad Actors will reveal themselves. It's on a tilted playing field where things dysfunction, and the crowd cries foul and declares the game invalid. In short, in 2019, for governments and big tech to have the Bad Actors fail, they need to stop doing end-runs around the law and principles of Human Rights. They need to stop giving ammunition to Bad Actors by being bad actors themselves.
      - ABCLAW 8y ago
        >Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Maybe in the long-term social view of the issue you're right but on a platform by platform basis this doesn't seem to be the case.
        BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
        Sure, censoring racists on YouTube means less racists on YouTube. But it does NOT mean less racists in the world.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kevingadd 8y ago
A 3-step plan to achieve regulatory capture: 1. Fail to moderate and engineer your platform, it turns into a complete cesspool 2. Government is forced to step in 3. Easily comply with government regulations because you're massive, now it is impossible for anyone to compete with you

mindslight 8y ago

.. by said platform not being based on the broken-ass dns/http naming system, and thus not relying on centralized servers that provide a juicy targets for legal nastygrams. Then when governments want to censor, they'll have to go after the errant individuals themselves rather than getting centralized platforms to perform categorical a priori enforcement for them. What's happening to Youtube et al right now was inevitable - this was apparent to anyone with half a brain back when AJAX was a novel thing. But "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it", and that VC funded advertising pop culture party was a hell of a time. Unfortunately this centralized detour has made it so that the move to p2p methods is going to be a lot more violent. Lawlmakers have now been primed to being able to wave their magic wand to implement their whims, and will expect that ability to continue. When reality hits and it stops working again, they'll be hunting for individuals to blame and persecute.

AWildC182 8y ago

I think this might actually be a good thing long run. Regulation forces decentralization until you reach the equilibrium where playing whack-a-mole ceases to be cost effective. If YT didn't have regulatory capture, the easy answer would be another YT clone startup. Now the solution is a protocol rather than a platform. The protocol can't be made illegal because it's not inherently against the law but if someone uploads something illegal to their node/whatever, that's on them.

dageshi 8y ago
With very few exceptions the web has flown from decentralised to centralised because centralised is an easier user experience and allows monetisation for content creators, decentralised does not (or at least hasn't so far). Plus, the people bitching about their content removed from youtube don't want to just be able to upload to youtube they want youtube's audience, they in fact think they're entitled to youtube's audience.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  they in fact think they're entitled to youtube's audience. What they're objecting to, is that their audience continues to exist, and YouTube and other tech companies are throwing up barriers between them and their existing audience -- even to the point of refusing to process payments and otherwise doing things which look like possibly illegal collusion between companies. YouTube has captured the mainstream of all vlog commentary across all society, but they insist that they can continue to act like they're just a niche tech player. It's no different than a company in 1985 that had owned 85% of all the TV stations and Newspapers in the US. At some point, media companies get too big and too dominant over human discourse. At some point, media companies can get big enough to become a threat to Free Speech.
stcredzero 8y ago
The protocol can't be made illegal because it's not inherently against the law but if someone uploads something illegal to their node/whatever, that's on them. Instead, such protocols can be marginalized through social means and through the media. On top of that, centralized alternatives can be hounded out of business and given the same treatment. YT doesn't have regulatory capture. They have effectively captured the lion's share of mainstream video commentary, with no apparent way for them to ever be replaced.

darkwizard42 8y ago

Is it a bad thing to make all new platforms have the ability to remove violating content as a base part of the platform? It means more investment in developing the tool, but I'd love to discuss more on why we think its okay that a "hot new" platform should be supported purely because it violates laws that the community deems important. ex. Lyft + Uber are an example I can think of where violation of existing laws was the only way to create innovation. Would love to hear more thoughts on how this might work with content/video companies

cowwithbeef 8y ago

I already prefer bitchute to youtube overall. Somehow they're staying alive. There's no need to get completely black pilled on the future of video hosting. We have hope.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

1) below a certain scale, they don't have to comply 2) if they make a good faith effort, at whatever level of expertise and resources they have, I belive they will be within the law. I dont think there is any specific legal requirement to do machine learning or any other specific implementation of content ID. I'd start with checksums, whatever level of flagging by hand I could afford, and go from there. As you scale you'll attract the attention of rights holders and need to spend more. But I would hope the courts would accept a good faith effort.

gdhbcc 8y ago
Your first point is objectively incorrect. The EU copyright laws apply to every website/company, the only difference is small companies/websites have 3 years to bring themselves into compliance.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  My first point is also objectively correct IF size and age are strongly correlated. Do you agree with that premise?

CM30 8y ago

Well, the answer depends on what kind of system it is. If its federated, by being split into such small pieces that the regulations don't really affect any particular one of them, since they're either unaffected or can remove content easily while washing their hands of what other people/communities say. If it's decentralised, by being literally impossible to shut down, block or go after users for using. That's always been the end goal for many of these systems.