2 ms·
Indeed! We, as many societies, will have to deal with the other large question: what do we do with monopolistic mega-companies? The Youtube question has to pr
by crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Indeed!
We, as many societies, will have to deal with the other large question: what do we do with monopolistic mega-companies?
The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography. There is Vimeo and other tiny video sites, but none of them amount to the connected monetization platforms, like the way Google does with YT.
Traditional monopolies don't really come into place, because as the canard here on HN is, "You can just make your own video site." In reality, that ignores all the interconnection and entrenchment. But Google doing X doesn't mean you can't. Are they a monopoly? (I believe they are.) And if so, what restrictions should they have in place to be fair?
(As and aside: I am arguing this in good faith. I've seen and had friends deplatformed for infosec, hacking, and gun repair videos on YT. I've also seen similar on FB and Twitter as well, with no recourse. And on FB and Twitter both, my elected politicians show up and talk with the populace. But alas, my first comment sits at -4, for what I guess is as a 'disagree button'. )
- tombert 7y ago> The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography Why draw the line at pornography? It's legal and protected speech (at least "mainstream" porn, not talking about child porn or anything like that). It's easy to say "well obviously YouTube isn't going to host that!", but it feels if we're going to compel them to platform speech they don't like, why would it stop at porn exactly? NOTE: I disagreed with your point above but I actually upvoted to offset some of the downvotes. HN really should reserve downvotes for problematic stuff or spam, not just people disagreeing where to draw the line for free speech.