5 ms·

Like, say, the railroads or the phone network, a mass-membership video platform is something which has too many "res publica" aspects to just let it be the prop

Like, say, the railroads or the phone network, a mass-membership video platform is something which has too many "res publica" aspects to just let it be the property of / in control of a private corporation; but which developed within, or was developed by, one or more such private corporations. The solution seems to be one of: 1. Let said corporations exert such control over public life. 2. Have nation-states nationalize it. 3. Have the UN internationalize it. 4. Have nation-states, perhaps in collaboration, strongly regulate it. 5. Force it (e.g. via regulation) to become distributed, so that no single entity can exert significant control. Option (1.) is the status quo and is the worst. The others each have pros and cons.

swiley 5y ago
Eventually people will get fed up with youtube. Peertube is already beginning to become popular and many youtubers are posting there and odesy. Google has become like most large American companies with a self destructive management layer, eventually that will eat Youtube as well. I'd certainly prefer we get a free/distributed alternative to nationalizing and cementing a terrible monopoly.
- spaceribs 5y ago
  Even worse for Google, when people get banned off YouTube, they get banned across all of Google's services. Every time you upload what is arbitrarily controversial, that outcome has to be weighed, and if PeerTube provides a viable alternative, why not use it?
- einpoklum 5y ago
  I tend to agree with your conclusion, but not necessarily with your argument. That is, yes, people might be "fed up with YouTube", but the point is that at any one time there can only be one video platform which hosts most videos... it doesn't really matter whether it's YouTube or NotYouTube by some other corporation; and the amount of material on YouTube is so staggering that I doubt we would see a distributed version of it being comparable any time soon. We don't even have a good distributed search engine (that I know of).
jasode 5y ago
>2. Have nation-states nationalize it. I didn't downvote your comment but having governments own the media would increase censorship instead of decrease it. We're not just talking about China CCP censorship but also democratic nations such as UK. See examples of BBC censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... >3. Have the UN internationalize it. This idea is underspecified because it does not explain implementation of how the video website is funded. This is key because censorship happens by proxy via money. If the implementation is to get governments to collectively chip in to fund a global video website, you will get more censorship -- not less. Politicians like to exercise government's power to censor.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "examples of BBC censorship" That's not a big list, more people are censored on youtube daily than BBC did in it's lifetime. This does not support your point. "Politicians like to exercise government's power to censor." And CEO's don't? Abusing political office for sensorship is a crime, abusing CEO position is ordinary business. Who is going to hold them accountable ? Are you free to show the world your company's dirty business? In contrast, I can submit a freedom of information request and get access to lots of information from mutiple government departments.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > Who is going to hold them accountable? What instance can you think of where governments have been held accountable for their censorship? There aren't a lot of high profile cases there. > Option (1.) is the status quo and is the worst. The others each have pros and cons. Based on what evidence? Where have alternatives been tried? Why aren't those alternatives in general use if they are so good? Is this a comparison of messy reality with unattainable theory? Trading a thing we can choose not to use for a thing must use and that is integrated with military force. is always a bad trade. However bad Google is, government control of the media is worse. The only exception I make to that rule is foreign ownership of media, which is probably worse than government control. But both are pretty bad.
root_axis 5y ago
I think it's absurd that we're talking about nationalizing entertainment websites like YouTube while the topic of nationalizing big pharma or big real-estate or big agriculture is never discussed.

swiley 5y ago

Eventually people will get fed up with youtube. Peertube is already beginning to become popular and many youtubers are posting there and odesy. Google has become like most large American companies with a self destructive management layer, eventually that will eat Youtube as well. I'd certainly prefer we get a free/distributed alternative to nationalizing and cementing a terrible monopoly.

spaceribs 5y ago
Even worse for Google, when people get banned off YouTube, they get banned across all of Google's services. Every time you upload what is arbitrarily controversial, that outcome has to be weighed, and if PeerTube provides a viable alternative, why not use it?
einpoklum 5y ago
I tend to agree with your conclusion, but not necessarily with your argument. That is, yes, people might be "fed up with YouTube", but the point is that at any one time there can only be one video platform which hosts most videos... it doesn't really matter whether it's YouTube or NotYouTube by some other corporation; and the amount of material on YouTube is so staggering that I doubt we would see a distributed version of it being comparable any time soon. We don't even have a good distributed search engine (that I know of).

jasode 5y ago

>2. Have nation-states nationalize it. I didn't downvote your comment but having governments own the media would increase censorship instead of decrease it. We're not just talking about China CCP censorship but also democratic nations such as UK. See examples of BBC censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... >3. Have the UN internationalize it. This idea is underspecified because it does not explain implementation of how the video website is funded. This is key because censorship happens by proxy via money. If the implementation is to get governments to collectively chip in to fund a global video website, you will get more censorship -- not less. Politicians like to exercise government's power to censor.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"examples of BBC censorship" That's not a big list, more people are censored on youtube daily than BBC did in it's lifetime. This does not support your point. "Politicians like to exercise government's power to censor." And CEO's don't? Abusing political office for sensorship is a crime, abusing CEO position is ordinary business. Who is going to hold them accountable ? Are you free to show the world your company's dirty business? In contrast, I can submit a freedom of information request and get access to lots of information from mutiple government departments.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > Who is going to hold them accountable? What instance can you think of where governments have been held accountable for their censorship? There aren't a lot of high profile cases there. > Option (1.) is the status quo and is the worst. The others each have pros and cons. Based on what evidence? Where have alternatives been tried? Why aren't those alternatives in general use if they are so good? Is this a comparison of messy reality with unattainable theory? Trading a thing we can choose not to use for a thing must use and that is integrated with military force. is always a bad trade. However bad Google is, government control of the media is worse. The only exception I make to that rule is foreign ownership of media, which is probably worse than government control. But both are pretty bad.

root_axis 5y ago

I think it's absurd that we're talking about nationalizing entertainment websites like YouTube while the topic of nationalizing big pharma or big real-estate or big agriculture is never discussed.