4 ms·

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 b

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.

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.