6 ms·

Youtube is the most popular video website on the internet. This makes it a fundamental human right. I am being sarcastic.

falcolas 7y ago
If a private developer were to take over most residential areas in a section of town, they would be responsible for providing public access, affordable housing, and other responsibilities normally associated with the government. This is enshrined in law - a private company that is the de-facto entity for a particular function gains the responsibilities of acting as a government entity. Since YouTube has a monopoly on video content on the internet, it may be reasonable to require YouTube to take on responsibilities normally handled by the government, such as ensuring the freedom of speech on their platform.
- nathan_long 7y ago
  > If a private developer were to take over most residential areas in a section of town There is a finite amount of land in a town, so a monopoly can exclude people. This is not true of video hosting - there can be as many video hosts as people care to build, and they are all equally usable from anywhere on the internet. > Since YouTube has a monopoly on video content on the internet They don't. Now, if ISPs started censoring particular political viewpoints, that would be different IMO. It's much harder to get a different ISP (at least where I live) than it is to browse to a different web site.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    > This is not true of video hosting - there can be as many video hosts as people care to build, and they are all equally usable from anywhere on the internet. There is a limited number of viewers, and content creators. YouTube has the monopoly on those two limited resources. I'd also contend that "equally usable" is also not true, especially with HD videos. Most of the world can't stream 4k videos across a L3 provider (which YouTube does not have do).
HBKXNCUO 7y ago
YouTube is the most popular website on the internet for regular (i.e. non-rich) people to participate in the public political debate by posting/watching videos. This means banning regular people from it substantially reduces their ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate. When people can't peacefully advocate for their interests, they do so violently. We don't want real world violence, so it's probably not a great idea to give YouTube carte blanche to decide who can meaningfully participate in the public political debate.
- root_axis 7y ago
  YouTube is just not that important. It's not some type of important political fixture, it's pretty universally regarded as a cesspool with regard to political discussion and most of the content is non-political anyway.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    What exactly do you mean by "not that important"? Is it your position that if, say, YouTube took down all content that was in favor of Democrats, and pushed content that was in favor of Republicans to the front page, and put it all over recommendations, that there would be no impact to elections?
    - root_axis 7y ago
      The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote), but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub... None of the top channels are political. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that YouTube is so important to politics that the government should step in to regulate it?
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote) Young people eventually grow up to vote. Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube? >but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. OK, but there is still a whole lot of political content on there. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub.... The second to most subscribed channel is not political as its main function, but there is most definitely political content on there. >Do you have any evidence to support the idea that YouTube is so important to politics that the government should step in to regulate it? Do you have any evidence to support the idea that people speaking on soapboxes are so important to politics that the government should step in to prevent municipalities from regulating their messages? There are billions of views of political videos on YouTube. It's a place where many millions go to consume political content. People get angry when political content they agree with gets censored.

falcolas 7y ago

If a private developer were to take over most residential areas in a section of town, they would be responsible for providing public access, affordable housing, and other responsibilities normally associated with the government. This is enshrined in law - a private company that is the de-facto entity for a particular function gains the responsibilities of acting as a government entity. Since YouTube has a monopoly on video content on the internet, it may be reasonable to require YouTube to take on responsibilities normally handled by the government, such as ensuring the freedom of speech on their platform.

nathan_long 7y ago
> If a private developer were to take over most residential areas in a section of town There is a finite amount of land in a town, so a monopoly can exclude people. This is not true of video hosting - there can be as many video hosts as people care to build, and they are all equally usable from anywhere on the internet. > Since YouTube has a monopoly on video content on the internet They don't. Now, if ISPs started censoring particular political viewpoints, that would be different IMO. It's much harder to get a different ISP (at least where I live) than it is to browse to a different web site.
- falcolas 7y ago
  > This is not true of video hosting - there can be as many video hosts as people care to build, and they are all equally usable from anywhere on the internet. There is a limited number of viewers, and content creators. YouTube has the monopoly on those two limited resources. I'd also contend that "equally usable" is also not true, especially with HD videos. Most of the world can't stream 4k videos across a L3 provider (which YouTube does not have do).

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

YouTube is the most popular website on the internet for regular (i.e. non-rich) people to participate in the public political debate by posting/watching videos. This means banning regular people from it substantially reduces their ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate. When people can't peacefully advocate for their interests, they do so violently. We don't want real world violence, so it's probably not a great idea to give YouTube carte blanche to decide who can meaningfully participate in the public political debate.

root_axis 7y ago
YouTube is just not that important. It's not some type of important political fixture, it's pretty universally regarded as a cesspool with regard to political discussion and most of the content is non-political anyway.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  What exactly do you mean by "not that important"? Is it your position that if, say, YouTube took down all content that was in favor of Democrats, and pushed content that was in favor of Republicans to the front page, and put it all over recommendations, that there would be no impact to elections?
  - root_axis 7y ago
    The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote), but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTube_channels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub... None of the top channels are political. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that YouTube is so important to politics that the government should step in to regulate it?
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      >The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote) Young people eventually grow up to vote. Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube? >but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. OK, but there is still a whole lot of political content on there. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub.... The second to most subscribed channel is not political as its main function, but there is most definitely political content on there. >Do you have any evidence to support the idea that YouTube is so important to politics that the government should step in to regulate it? Do you have any evidence to support the idea that people speaking on soapboxes are so important to politics that the government should step in to prevent municipalities from regulating their messages? There are billions of views of political videos on YouTube. It's a place where many millions go to consume political content. People get angry when political content they agree with gets censored.