3 ms·
It would be more in line with your local library refusing to catalog your book. Youtube is a content host, not a publisher.
by chasebank 6y ago
It would be more in line with your local library refusing to catalog your book. Youtube is a content host, not a publisher.
- threeseed 6y agoTV stations almost entirely host content. So my point still stands that the norm is for media companies to be able to curate their content as they see fit.
- TomMarius 6y agoPublic libraries are required by law to catalog books. Very different. Private libraries can and will often deny to catalog your random book.
- antonyh 6y agoYouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available. Even the terminology is consistent with publisher - channel, subscriber, and so on. If the content is explicitly uploaded to YT, then how is it not a publisher?
- coding_lobster 6y ago> YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available. The monetization aspect seems to be the only differentiation between what would consist a virtual library and a publisher. And we know how difficult it is to get monetized on YouTube and make it a viable source of income.