3 ms·
Newspapers typically did not enjoy monopoly positions in the markets they served, and even for those that did, rarely did those translate into worldwide monop
by akira2501 6y ago
Newspapers typically did not enjoy monopoly positions in the markets they served, and even for those that did, rarely did those translate into worldwide monopolies.
Also, because newspapers have an editor, they are liable for what they print. Google enjoys protections from these liabilities, even though they're clearly willing and capable of editing their users content.
The two situations are entirely different.
- shadowgovt 6y ago> Newspapers typically did not enjoy monopoly positions in the markets they served On average, newspapers definitely did. Most major cities have at most two primary newspapers. The difference between them and YouTube was geographic reach. ... even still, YT's size doesn't obligate them to provide hosting for high-bandwidth data. It definitely doesn't obligate them to put any specific videos in people's field-of-view. People with alternative viewpoints can buy cloud storage if they desperately need a place to host videos. The "Is YouTube an editor" question is a good one, but I have a hard time reconciling the notion that they're taking on new editorial behavior with the fact that they've always had both community standards and full control of their curation algorithm. Haven't they always been an editor in that sense, and the new concern is some people don't like how they're using that power?
- dylan604 6y agoMaybe prior to the 2000s that might be true, but there are plenty of major metro areas that are served by a single print newspaper.