5 ms·
They'll probably cull everything that doesn't earn them ad revenue, to minimize the fallout. The content will trend toward sanitized garbage and the viewers wil
by guscost 7y ago
They'll probably cull everything that doesn't earn them ad revenue, to minimize the fallout. The content will trend toward sanitized garbage and the viewers will start leaking to somewhere else.
- holler 7y agoThis is all great news if you're building a new social project...
- nwienert 7y agoOr if you just want more diversity.
- holler 7y agothat's the problem... the same handful of companies have dominated the space for the past decade and mostly monopolized the attention. we need more competitors.
- dvtrn 7y agoAny fun theories on how we ended up replicating the same issue of consolidated TV broadcasters and traditional media companies with internet media platforms and content outlets? We’ve had such a long time between the passage of things like the Fairness Doctrine and now to turn the boat (not to mention countless critiques of the consolidation of local news and syndicated television networks for examples), maybe learn a few lessons along the way that I wonder if this isn’t an emergent outcome and is in reality an inherent one. Is this an extreme terminus of network effects?
- smolder 7y agoNo, it's the environment that the media platforms exist in. It's our laws, our economic system, our way of governing, and who has power to influence those things: all fairly consistent due to inertia but not really fated to be what they are, IMO. People seem to think present reality was destined. I think there are other viable ways we could have developed that would look much different and have fewer, more, or just different problems than the ones we take for inevitable.
- intended 7y agoHow are you going to best network effects and the race to the bottom? It happened with news (the cable news cycle) and it’s happening with social media. The bare, sad truth is that any private or public societal scale information sharing function eventually gets captured - driven to relentlessly pound away at subconscious fight or flight routines so that they keep their cut of the audience. Eventually the need to keep the network alive (advertising) overcomes its ostensible mission of carrying valuable signal. As long as the two are not divorced - the advantage will lie in exploiting the vulnerability of our neurological systems over investing in carrying more in depth, boring but accurate news articles. At some level we must recognize that we need to get the best of a central source of truth while also ensuring that this source of truth is not captured by the governing bodies of a country.
- vkou 7y agoIf, as t -> infinity, the fate of a video hosting service is getting classified as a publisher, why would a competitor turn out any differently?
- coryrc 7y agoYou're only a publisher if you moderate the content you allow.
- holler 6y agomaybe they wouldn't, but would you like to live in a world where a single company has a literal stranglehold on video (or search, or social network) until the end of time? I'd rather have many companies competing with one another.
- driverdan 7y agoIt's not because the rules would apply to you as well. You'd have to do the same thing.
- rangibaby 7y agoYouTube will finally become “Tube”
- donw 7y agoIf they close off both ends does it become “Bubble”?
- ScoutOrgo 7y agoYep, kill any content an ML model has predicted of high risk or unprofitable. Classic example of a regulation second order effects resulting in the opposite outcome of what was intended.
- dependenttypes 7y agoIt seems to be exactly what would be intended. To get people to move to better platforms or improve the current one.