4 ms·

These platforms don’t replace the public square. The internet is the “public square” and you can buy your own domain and do whatever you want. These platforms

These platforms don’t replace the public square. The internet is the “public square” and you can buy your own domain and do whatever you want. These platforms are the giant retail shops that line the square in a capitalist world. They come and go. You don’t have to go into them and they can kick you out whenever they want.

vanniv 7y ago
Well, you could, except that if cloudflare doesn't like your content, your site isn't actually on the internet.
- themagician 7y ago
  Never used Cloudflare. The internet has existed without it for quite some time. I’m not even sure what they do, to be honest. Aren’t they just another CDN? I’ve used AWS and Cloudfront for years, never had a problem. And that’s only for high traffic applications.
  - jamesgeck0 7y ago
    About 10% of web requests flow through Cloudflare. If they decide they don't like you, you're gonna have a hard time.
    - themagician 7y ago
      I guess you just have to do what the other 90% do.
      - jamesgeck0 7y ago
        To an extent? But you have no control over what DNS server your visitors use, for example, and Cloudflare is the default for Firefox users in the US.
        themagician 7y ago
        Has Cloudflare created a blacklist on their DNS server of entries they won't resolve? EDIT I just looked this up. Seems like, in this specific instance, Cloudflare is contractually bound by the following: "The party operating the resolver should not by default block or filter domains unless specifically required by law in the jurisdiction in which the resolver operates. Mozilla will generally seek to work with DNS resolvers that provide unfiltered DNS responses and, at its discretion, may remove from consideration resolvers subject to legal filtering obligations, depending on the scope and nature of those obligations."
ghaff 7y ago
The argument is that YouTube is the big private park (with its own rules restricting speech) that everyone goes to while the actual public park is some square of concrete off on the edge of town that no one visits. There's at least some merit in an argument that YouTube is so dominant in user-uploaded video that, absent a big budget and/or notability to drive viewers elsewhere, if your video is not on YouTube it might as well not exist as far as the broader world is concerned.
- themagician 7y ago
  No, it’s not. My parents barely even know how to use YouTube, let alone use it regularly. You spend too much time in tech and you get blinders and literally start to think that nothing else exists. Most people still get their information from television and, believe it or not, radio. YouTube just makes video hosting easy. You have a freedom of speech, not a freedom to a guaranteed audience. Have you ever actually seen someone in a public square going on a rant? They are often lucky if they reach a few people.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    >dominant in user-uploaded video As far as I'm aware, I can't upload videos to CNN. I'm certainly aware that other sources of video exist; I don't even use YouTube much myself. I'm actually sympathetic to your overall argument especially when complaints focus on the difficulty of monetizing video outside of YouTube. But it's at least worth discussing what it means when a private company has outsized control over certain types of information sharing.
    - themagician 7y ago
      YouTube is the dominate player in videos hosted on YouTube.com. In fact, they have a total monopoly on YouTube.com. But you can upload videos to your own domain. It’s super easy. When YouTube started you could at least make the argument that uploading video was difficult, because in order for people to watch you had to convert it to VP6 and play it within Flash, but today everything supports MPEG4. Monetizing video outside of YouTube also isn’t difficult. Sponsors are easy to get if you have high quality content. If you have trash content then yeah, it is hard to monetize. Which lets be real here—that’s what we are talking about. People think they have a right to a free audience and a (cost free) revenue stream for uploading garbage content that is just marginally better than literally nothing at all. People seem to believe they have a right to an income for creating what is really just spam in video form. Honestly, I wish YouTube would just terminate the revenue sharing option entirely for non-partners. Let someone else deal with the garbage content and its associated drama.

vanniv 7y ago

Well, you could, except that if cloudflare doesn't like your content, your site isn't actually on the internet.

themagician 7y ago
Never used Cloudflare. The internet has existed without it for quite some time. I’m not even sure what they do, to be honest. Aren’t they just another CDN? I’ve used AWS and Cloudfront for years, never had a problem. And that’s only for high traffic applications.
- jamesgeck0 7y ago
  About 10% of web requests flow through Cloudflare. If they decide they don't like you, you're gonna have a hard time.
  - themagician 7y ago
    I guess you just have to do what the other 90% do.
    - jamesgeck0 7y ago
      To an extent? But you have no control over what DNS server your visitors use, for example, and Cloudflare is the default for Firefox users in the US.
      - themagician 7y ago
        Has Cloudflare created a blacklist on their DNS server of entries they won't resolve? EDIT I just looked this up. Seems like, in this specific instance, Cloudflare is contractually bound by the following: "The party operating the resolver should not by default block or filter domains unless specifically required by law in the jurisdiction in which the resolver operates. Mozilla will generally seek to work with DNS resolvers that provide unfiltered DNS responses and, at its discretion, may remove from consideration resolvers subject to legal filtering obligations, depending on the scope and nature of those obligations."

ghaff 7y ago

The argument is that YouTube is the big private park (with its own rules restricting speech) that everyone goes to while the actual public park is some square of concrete off on the edge of town that no one visits. There's at least some merit in an argument that YouTube is so dominant in user-uploaded video that, absent a big budget and/or notability to drive viewers elsewhere, if your video is not on YouTube it might as well not exist as far as the broader world is concerned.

themagician 7y ago
No, it’s not. My parents barely even know how to use YouTube, let alone use it regularly. You spend too much time in tech and you get blinders and literally start to think that nothing else exists. Most people still get their information from television and, believe it or not, radio. YouTube just makes video hosting easy. You have a freedom of speech, not a freedom to a guaranteed audience. Have you ever actually seen someone in a public square going on a rant? They are often lucky if they reach a few people.
- ghaff 7y ago
  >dominant in user-uploaded video As far as I'm aware, I can't upload videos to CNN. I'm certainly aware that other sources of video exist; I don't even use YouTube much myself. I'm actually sympathetic to your overall argument especially when complaints focus on the difficulty of monetizing video outside of YouTube. But it's at least worth discussing what it means when a private company has outsized control over certain types of information sharing.
  - themagician 7y ago
    YouTube is the dominate player in videos hosted on YouTube.com. In fact, they have a total monopoly on YouTube.com. But you can upload videos to your own domain. It’s super easy. When YouTube started you could at least make the argument that uploading video was difficult, because in order for people to watch you had to convert it to VP6 and play it within Flash, but today everything supports MPEG4. Monetizing video outside of YouTube also isn’t difficult. Sponsors are easy to get if you have high quality content. If you have trash content then yeah, it is hard to monetize. Which lets be real here—that’s what we are talking about. People think they have a right to a free audience and a (cost free) revenue stream for uploading garbage content that is just marginally better than literally nothing at all. People seem to believe they have a right to an income for creating what is really just spam in video form. Honestly, I wish YouTube would just terminate the revenue sharing option entirely for non-partners. Let someone else deal with the garbage content and its associated drama.