12 ms·

No, it edges closer to Youtube being a publisher that controls or curates the content that is available on their platform.

• runawaybottle 7y ago
  That’s like saying the MTA is some independent platform that New Yorkers can choose to use or not use. Another example would be saying cable companies that have a monopoly over your region (once upon a time) provide real choice to customers that want to switch. Youtube is the de facto video platform that the masses use, so much so that Youtube finds it necessary to enact something like this. To bring it back to your point - If we don’t like YouTube’s policies, we can’t just simply ignore Youtube and move on from it. How it controls things is a big deal, especially if it is similar to how non-free governments censor stuff. We have to be vigilant of this, it ain’t some niche video site.
  • dwaltrip 7y ago
    Perhaps you are right, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you are presenting. I'm not sure what the correct answer is.
  • jhanschoo 7y ago
    There's a difference between YT and a monopoly that matters in the law. You aren't paying anything to use or consume YT, no matter if you're a viewer or a content creator. It sounds like the ones who have standing are the advertisers, and I think advertisers would be fine with YT being more curated.