6 ms·

Do they really need to make that explicit in the terms of service? I thought it was obvious that I didn't have the right to make Google/YouTube pay for hosting

• OzzyB 7y ago
  > I would say that now is the time for a wannabe competitor to YouTube Yes, but how does the new upstart try to get traction from under an avalanche of useful shills that will start to smear them as "NaziTube"? Edit/Addendum: Do you honestly think a new upstart would enjoy an "understanding press" in their "growing-pains years" like our current incumbents did?
  • edmundsauto 7y ago
    I do. Media love an underdog story, especially when the underdog is taking on the companies that are costing them revenue. I suspect the "NaziTube" nicknames (did this happen somewhere? Or is it more of a hypothetical example) are because upstarts don't have the resources to ensure Nazi videos are blocked. Thus, they become a breeding ground for that pernicious type of scum that has been evicted from the larger, better resourced, systems.
    • catalogia 7y ago
      Forget the nazi shit for a minute: I doubt a youtube competitor upstart could get away with the sort of flagrant widespread copyright violation that was once common on youtube. Youtube itself got away with that for a few years, but can that stunt be replicated? I doubt it.
      • edmundsauto 7y ago
        Good point. OTOH, there wasn't as much amateur digital content back then -- pretty much anything I wanted to watch was owned by a larger company. Nowadays, hobbyists and retirees and all kinds of people own the rights to content that I would want to see. The environment has changed a lot, and it might not be a prerequisite to copy YT's growth model.
    • shadowgovt 7y ago
      Unfortunately, that becomes a reason not to support YouTube alternatives if one doesn't actually want to create a breeding ground for that content that cannot practically be moderated. It's a vicious cycle.
    • wang_li 7y ago
      Among quite a significant portion of the vocal participants in social media anyone right of Bernie is a nazi. They call orthodox jews (Prager, Shapiro), lefty academics (Haidt, Peterson, Weinstein), and liberal gays (Rubin) Nazis.
  • etchalon 7y ago
    It would if it had a legitimate new take on the video hosting problem and wasn't just "YouTube, but for free speech", which would immediately become "YouTube, but for Nazis". Folding Ideas (on YouTube) had a solid video about VidMe, which is a case study in how NOT to do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI
  • shadowgovt 7y ago
    Possibly the more interesting question is "How will they attract advertisers when their content is an avalanche of Nazi-sympathetic videos?" It's hard to compete with YouTube if your revenue model is ads and your content is "The stuff that YouTube wouldn't touch." Most of the ad industry doesn't want to associate with that content; that's part of the reason YouTube doesn't want to touch it. So a competitor going the road of trying to host that content would probably need to find a revenue model that isn't ad-based, for starters. That's gonna be a challenge (subscription-based model for Nazi-sympathetic content? ;) ).
    • zozbot234 7y ago
      > It's hard to compete with YouTube if your revenue model is ads and your content is "The stuff that YouTube wouldn't touch." Um, there is an established industry that manages this just fine.
      • shadowgovt 7y ago
        You are correct; I completely discounted porn (which is also picking up the advertisers that YT sheds). But porn sites generally aren't going to be hosting pro-Nazi garbage because their advertisers also don't want to be associated with it. Reduces to the same problem. It does, perhaps, point to a possibility; much as the porn sites gain on the fact that YT filters both the content and the advertising it allows on the network, one could imagine a hyper-niche site that is combining content YT kicks off with another (non-porn) category of advertisers YT kicks off. Gun manufacturers come to mind.
    • bilbo0s 7y ago
      Well, you could do it for porn. But yeah, not much else. Certainly no one's gonna pay for the usual suspects' videos.
  • OzzyB 7y ago
    Looks like I hit a nerve! which is shame b/c there are some good comments from people who understand that the tech landscape today is a lot different from "way" back in 2005/6; which means making a new YouTube today isn't so much a technical problem as much a political one.
    • cannonedhamster 7y ago
      It may be technically easy but you still have to deal with network effect, bandwidth costs, and a multitude of the legal issues before we even get to political issues. There already exist alternatives to Youtube that solve various aspects of this. Peertube, BitChute, Mega, heck there's no reason one couldn't use the the tech behind popcorntime for setting up something useful and legal. You still run into network effect every time.
      • OzzyB 7y ago
        Yep, I agree it's Network Effects every time, which is why I was trying to make the point (badly I guess) that it's easy to kill any upstarts' chances of getting any kind of network effects when they're immediately called out as a cesspool (I used "NaziTube" as a descriptive buy ya'll know what I mean). I remember in those early days how TechCrunch (under Arrington) did a great job easing concerns and guiding the narrative to be favorable for those startups, which I just don't see happening today... but then I guess he got stock options for some of that xD
  • Izkata 7y ago
    To downvoters: This already happened with Twitter and Gab. Asking what would prevent it here is a very apt question.
• pmiller2 7y ago
  I think this is just like those “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” signs you see at B&M businesses sometimes. Sure, it’s stating the obvious, but it gives the business owner something to point at when they want to boot someone.
  • all2 7y ago
    But businesses don't have a right to refuse service to anyone. Especially if the reasons for refusal are not in vogue.
    • catalogia 7y ago
      They do in fact have a right to refuse service to anybody. But that doesn't mean they have a right to refuse service for any reason. Some sorts of reasons are forbidden, for instance discriminating on the basis of race.
      • BrandoElFollito 7y ago
        It depends on the country. In France for instance if a business exposes something for sale they have to sell it to any customer. They cannot withdraw the sell, nor refuse to sell.
        • catalogia 7y ago
          So a business in France can't institute a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy? I have my doubts.
          • BrandoElFollito 7y ago
            This is indeed the case. Unfortunately the sources are in French (see for instance https://droit-finances.commentcamarche.com/faq/23970-refus-de-vente-ce-que-dit-la-loi https://droit-finances.commentcamarche.com/faq/23970-refus-d...). From that source: > Le refus de vente à un particulier est prohibé par la législation. Cette interdiction est posée par l'article L121-11 du Code de la consommation. Elle s'applique aussi bien aux ventes de produits qu'aux prestations de services. This loosely means that not accepting a sale to a individual is forbidden. The law covers goods and services (article L121-11 of a code for "consumption" (includes sales)). There are "special cases" when a seller can refuse to sell and they were specified by courts. Some examples: - no more items in stock (one cannot force a seller to get more stocks of a given product) - enormous amounts of a given good - customer who poses a danger to the seller (violence, insults) - customer who is known to be unable to pay - customer who would like to buy illegal goods in his context (e.g. alcohol for underage customers) Generally speaking, there must be a very, very good reason to decline a sale. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is not one of them (to take your example - because walking without shoes or shirt is allowed in France)
• brodouevencode 7y ago
  Well, the sense that I've gotten until recently is that they were way more open to dissenting views. YouTube was a place where anyone could host anything as long as it didn't violate any law (DMCA, etc.). It even meant hosting videos of whose ideas were just down right crazy. But recently IMHO they've gotten too political for their own good. And to your point yes, it was obvious they have editorial control over everything but unless it was breaking the law they were going to let all voices speak. (EDIT: clarity)
  • metamet 7y ago
    How else should they have handled Alex Jones' Sandy Hook insanity? Like, that becomes innately "political" because Jones has positioned himself that way. But he was peddling insane conspiracy theories regarding Sandy Hook being a false flag, with all of the families who lost their kids being crisis actors, subsequently calling his audience to action. That is a hard position to be in, because they were effectively platforming targeted harassment. In addition to that, videos stating that Omar married her brother are still upon YT, as are flat earth explanations. One is a "harmless" conspiracy theory that ends up as a gateway into absurd things like Pizzagate, while the other is libelously spreading lies about a member of congress. Where's the line? Because it doesn't appear as if there's one we all agree on.
    • nyolfen 7y ago
      he got sued, let the courts handle it
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      • metamet 7y ago
        Right. But, as a public company, should their position be to leave the harassment up until the court finishes up with its process, promoting its continued spread? Because what do they gain from leaving this stuff up? It hurts people. If their stated goal is to be a bastion of free speech, that's one thing. But they're not doing that. They're providing a service. Passively hosting and platforming harassment definitely doesn't fit in with their initial "don't be evil" ethos.
• zelon88 7y ago
  > Do they really need to make that explicit in the terms of service? I thought it was obvious that I didn't have the right to make Google/YouTube pay for hosting and serving a video just because I created it. You would think most people understand this. However there is a political movement in America to force social networks to host people's vulgar or derogatory opinions in the name of the "first amendment," which technically never applied to privately funded social networks in the first place. Lots of people would never think of walking into a Target and posting illiterate political meme's on the wall. But that's almost exactly what you're doing by making Facebook and YouTube spread your hate.
  • belorn 7y ago
    First amendment apply to the government and anything that functions equivalent to the government. Its that second part that court has made decisions going both way, and the question got mentioned as recently as this year when Trump twitter account got declared to function equivalent as any other official government forum. In that specific case the twitter account of the US president was deemed such, but the whole of twitter was explicitly not judged on. Beside that, a lot of people talk to media about first amendment they often then go to court raising anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are much more broader and can be applied to private funded companies. When it comes to international companies there is also free speech as defined by the EU and that one do not make a distinction between company and state in the same way as the first amendment. The distinction between free speech (US first amendment), free speech (EU human rights) and free speech (US anti-discrimination) are all fine legal technicallities, but limitation in one does not give private funded social networks free range to do whatever they want.
    • zelon88 7y ago
      How do you figure? You agreed that your posts would be moderated when you signed up. Should Facebook be eternally available to host people's timeline? Who pays for that? Why should I innovate the next big thing if someone in a different country is going to hold me legally responsible to support it forever? And the ruling doesn't mean Twitter has to host Trump's Tweets forever or guarantee service. If he breaks their TOS they will ban him. They have a right too. What the ruling means is that the government has a responsibility to archive his Twitter posts and that he himself cannot restrict access to it, as president.