3 ms·
That’s the point. This might be acceptable if there was even one single thing about YouTube that was itself democratic in any way. Since there isn’t, this is an
by samdlathsworth 6y ago
That’s the point. This might be acceptable if there was even one single thing about YouTube that was itself democratic in any way.
Since there isn’t, this is an inherently anti-democratic maneuver.
The corporate oligarchy is shedding yet a bit mote hesitation to fully realize itself. This is not a good thing.
- worik 6y agoIt is private property! Why do you expect it to be "democratic"? Whilst the abolition of private property is a interesting idea, that is not, I expect, what you would advocate?
- jmnicolas 6y agoWhen you're the ONLY* alternative for videos online you have a moral obligation of being impartial. * Vimeo, Daily Motion, Lbry or whatever else have even less shares than desktop Linuxes vs Windows. YouTube is the only game in town.
- SamBam 6y agoThe popularity of other equally-good services should have no bearing on whether a service has a "moral obligation" to do something. There's nothing preventing all the conspiracy theorists from deciding en masse to move to Vimeo, or setting up their own video posting system on Gab or Parler.