3 ms·

First, Google is already heavily curating information on their platform. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. Secondly, Youtube is not a public good. It

First, Google is already heavily curating information on their platform. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. Secondly, Youtube is not a public good. It is a product owned by a company who answers to their shareholders. Google is free (and should remain free) to censor whatever they want on the platform that they own, and users/content creators are free to leave for other platforms. Finally, before folks say that Youtube is a monopoly in video content on the internet, no they aren't. Are they the biggest? Sure. But by no means are they the only platform.

mod 6y ago
I doubt most of the people (like myself) disagree with anything you say. We can still think it's absolutely ridiculous that they're doing it. I don't think they should face legal sanctions or anything. I think they should step out of politics. But yeah, they don't have to.
teeray 6y ago
> Google is free (and should remain free) to censor whatever they want on the platform that they own So, since ISPs also own their platform, should they also be free to block content that competes with their services along with content they’re required to block by law?
- nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
  If only we had a government mechanism for holding service providers to higher standards for neutral delivery of services to citizens regardless of economic incentives.
  - openyoureyesman 6y ago
    Yeah, and if only I had a pony. lol
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    I see what you did there.
mlyle 6y ago
Yes, obviously. The point is, we have a whole bunch of mores and law that work together to form a free society work that were formed in times when most interpersonal communications didn't go through a few concentrated intermediaries. This new equilibrium a really big concern for free communication and freedom of speech: just letting whatever dangerous stuff circulate at massive scale isn't good, but fully empowering corporate entities being able to squash and marginalize categories of speech isn't great either.
inglor_cz 6y ago
Generally, a company need not be the only one on the market in order to be considered dominant for the purpose of anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws apply to non-monopolies as well.

mod 6y ago

I doubt most of the people (like myself) disagree with anything you say. We can still think it's absolutely ridiculous that they're doing it. I don't think they should face legal sanctions or anything. I think they should step out of politics. But yeah, they don't have to.

teeray 6y ago

> Google is free (and should remain free) to censor whatever they want on the platform that they own So, since ISPs also own their platform, should they also be free to block content that competes with their services along with content they’re required to block by law?

nuclear_eclipse 6y ago
If only we had a government mechanism for holding service providers to higher standards for neutral delivery of services to citizens regardless of economic incentives.
- openyoureyesman 6y ago
  Yeah, and if only I had a pony. lol
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I see what you did there.

mlyle 6y ago

Yes, obviously. The point is, we have a whole bunch of mores and law that work together to form a free society work that were formed in times when most interpersonal communications didn't go through a few concentrated intermediaries. This new equilibrium a really big concern for free communication and freedom of speech: just letting whatever dangerous stuff circulate at massive scale isn't good, but fully empowering corporate entities being able to squash and marginalize categories of speech isn't great either.

inglor_cz 6y ago

Generally, a company need not be the only one on the market in order to be considered dominant for the purpose of anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws apply to non-monopolies as well.