3 ms·

The tech companies banning, deplatforming, etc. is exactly their voice turned back on them. They don't think private companies should have to bake a cake for a

The tech companies banning, deplatforming, etc. is exactly their voice turned back on them. They don't think private companies should have to bake a cake for a gay couple, so, why should they believe private companies should host the President, after he's been given extra special treatment to be allowed to remain, and still managed to fuck that up? Maybe people need to learn to stop voting against their interests. Maybe they need to learn "rules for thee, but not for me" isn't how it ought to work.

starik36 6y ago
The baking company isn't the only game in town. But things like YouTube are factual monopolies. Therefore they should be treated like a utility. Now, if every bakery in town refused to do a gay cake - that would be a problem.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I found this with a 10 second search on YouTube's parent company's search engine: https://kinsta.com/blog/video-hosting/ https://kinsta.com/blog/video-hosting/ Can't conservatives go make their own video hosting platform? We’ve already seen how willing they are to take their ball to their own, private little country club when things get too hot for them. Crying “monopoly” doesn’t ring true here. What’s the “free market” argument that says a private business should be forced to host hate speech, for free? What’s even the legal argument that YouTube is a monopoly, when DoJ has taken exactly zero action towards breaking it up? Edit: light rephrasing
  - starik36 6y ago
    > Can't conservatives go make their own video hosting platform? Can't %group% go make %something%. Forget conservatives. Anyone who makes their living making video is doing so based on YouTube's whim. If they kick you off, even by mistake as has happened multiple times, you have no recourse. That's what makes them a monopoly. That is why they need to be treated as a utility.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      That's not Youtube's fault. They're not stopping anyone from starting and promoting a competing service. Again, DoJ has done fuck all to break them up, so, why are they considered a monopoly? And why should a private business that isn't a monopoly be forced to host (edit: or link to) anything they don't want to? Whether I believe this or not, it's a fair argument to use against conservatives here, because that's what they say all the time.
      - starik36 6y ago
        > That's not Youtube's fault I am not blaming YouTube. In fact, good on them for beating everyone to the punch. Nonetheless, they are in a situation where they are the only game in town and should either act like that or be made to act that way. I mean, if the Edison electric company (they only local power provider) decided to kick me off their grid cause my views don't match theirs or for whatever reason, I'd be screwed. That's why they are treated as a utility, and not just another private company. > DoJ has done fuck all to break them up There is no disagreement here - I am just giving you my opinion on the way things should be©. DoJ should be more aggressive, but they are hamstrung by laws written in the days of robber barons. They couldn't even break up Microsoft 20 years ago when it was clear that monopoly position abuses took place on a regular basis. > it's a fair argument to use against conservatives here I'll concede this point. However, the well known "first they came for the %group% and I didn't care cause I wasn't a member" applies here. Cause when they come to demonetize you, ain't nobody gonna be around to help.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Well, when they come for the fascists, I'll care. I'll be waving goodbye when they're packed on the train. As far as Youtube being "the only game in town," that's not relevant as long as they're legally not considered a monopoly. Edit: Also, why should Youtube unilaterally decide it's a monopoly and start being nice? At what amount of market share is a company required to put the kid gloves on? Again, I'm more playing Devil's advocate here, but these are the arguments you'll hear from right wingers all the time.

starik36 6y ago

The baking company isn't the only game in town. But things like YouTube are factual monopolies. Therefore they should be treated like a utility. Now, if every bakery in town refused to do a gay cake - that would be a problem.

pmiller2 6y ago
I found this with a 10 second search on YouTube's parent company's search engine: https://kinsta.com/blog/video-hosting/ https://kinsta.com/blog/video-hosting/ Can't conservatives go make their own video hosting platform? We’ve already seen how willing they are to take their ball to their own, private little country club when things get too hot for them. Crying “monopoly” doesn’t ring true here. What’s the “free market” argument that says a private business should be forced to host hate speech, for free? What’s even the legal argument that YouTube is a monopoly, when DoJ has taken exactly zero action towards breaking it up? Edit: light rephrasing
- starik36 6y ago
  > Can't conservatives go make their own video hosting platform? Can't %group% go make %something%. Forget conservatives. Anyone who makes their living making video is doing so based on YouTube's whim. If they kick you off, even by mistake as has happened multiple times, you have no recourse. That's what makes them a monopoly. That is why they need to be treated as a utility.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    That's not Youtube's fault. They're not stopping anyone from starting and promoting a competing service. Again, DoJ has done fuck all to break them up, so, why are they considered a monopoly? And why should a private business that isn't a monopoly be forced to host (edit: or link to) anything they don't want to? Whether I believe this or not, it's a fair argument to use against conservatives here, because that's what they say all the time.
    - starik36 6y ago
      > That's not Youtube's fault I am not blaming YouTube. In fact, good on them for beating everyone to the punch. Nonetheless, they are in a situation where they are the only game in town and should either act like that or be made to act that way. I mean, if the Edison electric company (they only local power provider) decided to kick me off their grid cause my views don't match theirs or for whatever reason, I'd be screwed. That's why they are treated as a utility, and not just another private company. > DoJ has done fuck all to break them up There is no disagreement here - I am just giving you my opinion on the way things should be©. DoJ should be more aggressive, but they are hamstrung by laws written in the days of robber barons. They couldn't even break up Microsoft 20 years ago when it was clear that monopoly position abuses took place on a regular basis. > it's a fair argument to use against conservatives here I'll concede this point. However, the well known "first they came for the %group% and I didn't care cause I wasn't a member" applies here. Cause when they come to demonetize you, ain't nobody gonna be around to help.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Well, when they come for the fascists, I'll care. I'll be waving goodbye when they're packed on the train. As far as Youtube being "the only game in town," that's not relevant as long as they're legally not considered a monopoly. Edit: Also, why should Youtube unilaterally decide it's a monopoly and start being nice? At what amount of market share is a company required to put the kid gloves on? Again, I'm more playing Devil's advocate here, but these are the arguments you'll hear from right wingers all the time.