6 ms·

It's only a fallacy if there is no demonstrable slope.

analognoise 7y ago
It's only a fallacy if you think YouTube owes anyone free platform access and to uphold free speech as a private entity. They don't.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Is this an argument about free speech? Its more about the arbitrary practices which affect people’s livelihood while youtube retains all the profits from content it eventually disagrees with This anticompetitive behavior can be curbed using the people’s government in ways that have nothing to do with free speech
  - analognoise 7y ago
    Are there alternatives? Yes, tons of them. Don't like Youtube? Don't use Youtube. Simple.
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      And simultaneously use existing arbiters created by the people to change youtube’s internal policies
- starik36 7y ago
  They are acting like a monopolist. And they are an effective monopoly.
  - analognoise 7y ago
    There's tons of other video sites that people are free to use. Nobody "requires" you to use YouTube. "But more people are there, my videos won't be see elsewhere!" does not count as a monopoly. Host your videos elsewhere, nobody's "owed" access to Youtube.
  - jtr_47 7y ago
    They are a for profit company and can do what ever they want. regardless if their membership is free or not. There are other choices out there. They may not be the best. People can build their own youtube if they want to. At least in the USofA you can build something similar with your own rules. youtube can be taken down, but people appear to be too lazy or unaware of what youtube is doing slowly. Taking away certain liberties that used to be available in YouTube. peace
  - otakucode 7y ago
    A reply to you makes the unsubstantiated claim that YouTube is a profit-seeking company. They ignore the fact that, no, YouTube has not operated as a profit-seeking company. The reason YouTube is, and will remain, the pre-eminent video platform is because it was run at a profound loss for over a decade, losing hundreds of millions of dollars at a clip, for no reason other than to totally suppress competition. Framing them as some kind of capitalist company is genuinely false. If you wish to build a competitor to YouTube, your first task is to secure a billion dollars or so to build a competitive infrastructure with investors who are prepared to lose money on its operation for no less than a decade and quite possibly forever (or until Google goes bankrupt).
    - analognoise 7y ago
      Your local auto parts store prices oil lower than a mechanic can get it for, just to bring people in the door to sell them other items. This is a well known tactic; these items are called "loss leaders". The fact that in this environment other people have successfully made video sharing websites (without a billion dollars, no less) means that the environment is competitive, even with the loss leader tactic. On TOP of that, "Sharing videos" is not something that is required for civil society. It's an ancillary waste of time, but in no way owed to the public sphere.
      - alasdair_ 7y ago
        >Your local auto parts store prices oil lower than a mechanic can get it for Why doesn't the mechanic just buy their oil from the auto parts store?
        analognoise 7y ago
        They do! But they charge you full retail price on the bill, without the loss leader pricing. If you've ever had an oil change and thought, "I can get oil for less" - you're right.
    - mbesto 7y ago
      > The reason YouTube is, and will remain, the pre-eminent video platform is because it was run at a profound loss for over a decade, losing hundreds of millions of dollars at a clip, for no reason other than to totally suppress competition. No one actually knows whether YT is technically profitable as a sole entity. So the premise of your argument and the argument you're referring to is basically flawed unless you have insider information.
- NieDzejkob 7y ago
  It's not censorship by the definition used by law, no. It's still morally ambiguous...
  - flipcoder 7y ago
    It's like how free speech is both a reference to the first amendment and a concept in and of itself, meaning that you can support free speech in private spaces, without supporting it as a requirement under law. There's always confusion over the difference between what should be allowed under law and how things should be ideally.

It's only a fallacy if you think YouTube owes anyone free platform access and to uphold free speech as a private entity. They don't.

rolltiide 7y ago
Is this an argument about free speech? Its more about the arbitrary practices which affect people’s livelihood while youtube retains all the profits from content it eventually disagrees with This anticompetitive behavior can be curbed using the people’s government in ways that have nothing to do with free speech
- analognoise 7y ago
  Are there alternatives? Yes, tons of them. Don't like Youtube? Don't use Youtube. Simple.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    And simultaneously use existing arbiters created by the people to change youtube’s internal policies
starik36 7y ago
They are acting like a monopolist. And they are an effective monopoly.
- analognoise 7y ago
  There's tons of other video sites that people are free to use. Nobody "requires" you to use YouTube. "But more people are there, my videos won't be see elsewhere!" does not count as a monopoly. Host your videos elsewhere, nobody's "owed" access to Youtube.
- jtr_47 7y ago
  They are a for profit company and can do what ever they want. regardless if their membership is free or not. There are other choices out there. They may not be the best. People can build their own youtube if they want to. At least in the USofA you can build something similar with your own rules. youtube can be taken down, but people appear to be too lazy or unaware of what youtube is doing slowly. Taking away certain liberties that used to be available in YouTube. peace
- otakucode 7y ago
  A reply to you makes the unsubstantiated claim that YouTube is a profit-seeking company. They ignore the fact that, no, YouTube has not operated as a profit-seeking company. The reason YouTube is, and will remain, the pre-eminent video platform is because it was run at a profound loss for over a decade, losing hundreds of millions of dollars at a clip, for no reason other than to totally suppress competition. Framing them as some kind of capitalist company is genuinely false. If you wish to build a competitor to YouTube, your first task is to secure a billion dollars or so to build a competitive infrastructure with investors who are prepared to lose money on its operation for no less than a decade and quite possibly forever (or until Google goes bankrupt).
  - analognoise 7y ago
    Your local auto parts store prices oil lower than a mechanic can get it for, just to bring people in the door to sell them other items. This is a well known tactic; these items are called "loss leaders". The fact that in this environment other people have successfully made video sharing websites (without a billion dollars, no less) means that the environment is competitive, even with the loss leader tactic. On TOP of that, "Sharing videos" is not something that is required for civil society. It's an ancillary waste of time, but in no way owed to the public sphere.
    - alasdair_ 7y ago
      >Your local auto parts store prices oil lower than a mechanic can get it for Why doesn't the mechanic just buy their oil from the auto parts store?
      - analognoise 7y ago
        They do! But they charge you full retail price on the bill, without the loss leader pricing. If you've ever had an oil change and thought, "I can get oil for less" - you're right.
  - mbesto 7y ago
    > The reason YouTube is, and will remain, the pre-eminent video platform is because it was run at a profound loss for over a decade, losing hundreds of millions of dollars at a clip, for no reason other than to totally suppress competition. No one actually knows whether YT is technically profitable as a sole entity. So the premise of your argument and the argument you're referring to is basically flawed unless you have insider information.
NieDzejkob 7y ago
It's not censorship by the definition used by law, no. It's still morally ambiguous...
- flipcoder 7y ago
  It's like how free speech is both a reference to the first amendment and a concept in and of itself, meaning that you can support free speech in private spaces, without supporting it as a requirement under law. There's always confusion over the difference between what should be allowed under law and how things should be ideally.