3 ms·

The owners of the first telegraph networks banned journalists who reported on forced child labor and union busting. They manipulated elections and stock prices.

The owners of the first telegraph networks banned journalists who reported on forced child labor and union busting. They manipulated elections and stock prices. And you would have defended those robber-barons. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, right? Sure, they have a virtual monopoly on electronic communication, and they built their networks through direct and indirect subsidy from tax payers, but it's a "private" network, and they are a corporation, so not just do they get to be evil, but smug people will defend them from anyone even criticizing them. A corporation was supposed to provide a public good in exchange for the privileges they are granted. I know that there isn't really anything we can do about it anymore. In many ways they have materially benefited from the public. I don't think it is too much to ask that we get something back.

pfisch 6y ago
Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true.
- apostacy 6y ago
  > Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true. ...I was referring to the telegraph operators. Everything I said was true of them. Right down to the toadies that defend the rich and powerful. But regardless, I think a good case can be made that Google, and the other tech giants, have a near monopoly.
  - pfisch 6y ago
    Then it is a terrible comparison. Google does not control distribution of video content on the web. There are many platforms that could be used to share a movie on the web. That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators.
    - apostacy 6y ago
      > That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators. I never said that YouTube was exactly like telegraph operators. I was making a much more general comparison between of communication magnates back then and now. It seems like a pretty direct mapping to me. Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past both benefited greatly from the government, and yet they like to claim they are "private platforms", and are therefore entitled to be as evil as they like, as long as it happens on their network. Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past did evil stuff. And the free market did not stop them. The people and the government had to restrain them. Facebook and Google are doing some really egregious things. And I think it is going to take direct government sanction to keep them in line. And yes, I do think that effectively Google and a few other companies have a de-facto monopoly on video platforms, due to their vertically integrated infrastructure. I don't think there is a realistic way to exert market pressure against their agenda. Just the tip of the iceberg, but independent journalists/podcasters that tried informing the public about horrible working conditions at Amazon warehouses were systemically removed from YouTube. Only organizations deemed "legitimate" are even allowed to upload videos where people use the word "coronavirus" without having their videos demoted, or outright deleted. Independent journalists banned, but Fox and MSNBC are promoted to the front page. Do I seriously have to connect the dots about how companies like Google and Amazon are starting to act very much like 19th century industrialists?
      - pfisch 6y ago
        The only real reason they are censoring anything is to make it so the government doesn't have to intervene. If youtube/facebook/etc were just platforms where people were spreading false information/hysteria/propaganda from other countries targeting the US during a crisis the government would step in and force its own censorship regime on these services. These services are trying to prevent that from happening by being proactive about policing themselves. This is expensive. They wouldn't do it without a profit motive of keeping the government from getting involved, which would probably be even worse.

pfisch 6y ago

Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true.

apostacy 6y ago
> Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true. ...I was referring to the telegraph operators. Everything I said was true of them. Right down to the toadies that defend the rich and powerful. But regardless, I think a good case can be made that Google, and the other tech giants, have a near monopoly.
- pfisch 6y ago
  Then it is a terrible comparison. Google does not control distribution of video content on the web. There are many platforms that could be used to share a movie on the web. That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators.
  - apostacy 6y ago
    > That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators. I never said that YouTube was exactly like telegraph operators. I was making a much more general comparison between of communication magnates back then and now. It seems like a pretty direct mapping to me. Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past both benefited greatly from the government, and yet they like to claim they are "private platforms", and are therefore entitled to be as evil as they like, as long as it happens on their network. Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past did evil stuff. And the free market did not stop them. The people and the government had to restrain them. Facebook and Google are doing some really egregious things. And I think it is going to take direct government sanction to keep them in line. And yes, I do think that effectively Google and a few other companies have a de-facto monopoly on video platforms, due to their vertically integrated infrastructure. I don't think there is a realistic way to exert market pressure against their agenda. Just the tip of the iceberg, but independent journalists/podcasters that tried informing the public about horrible working conditions at Amazon warehouses were systemically removed from YouTube. Only organizations deemed "legitimate" are even allowed to upload videos where people use the word "coronavirus" without having their videos demoted, or outright deleted. Independent journalists banned, but Fox and MSNBC are promoted to the front page. Do I seriously have to connect the dots about how companies like Google and Amazon are starting to act very much like 19th century industrialists?
    - pfisch 6y ago
      The only real reason they are censoring anything is to make it so the government doesn't have to intervene. If youtube/facebook/etc were just platforms where people were spreading false information/hysteria/propaganda from other countries targeting the US during a crisis the government would step in and force its own censorship regime on these services. These services are trying to prevent that from happening by being proactive about policing themselves. This is expensive. They wouldn't do it without a profit motive of keeping the government from getting involved, which would probably be even worse.