2 ms·

I'm ambiguous about the need to create laws to regulate services like youtube. In my view, it is a private service and they have their right to instate their ow

I'm ambiguous about the need to create laws to regulate services like youtube. In my view, it is a private service and they have their right to instate their own rules. What we really need, I think, are options. Peertube seems like a good one.

dunco 5y ago
I'm interested to know what would be the trigger point for you here that might demand regulation. are you fully libertarian and willing to endure serious negative societal effects to preserve this one type of freedom? If you could see that the lack of moderation on youtube was causing societal collapse because everyone believed things that were not true(lets say here for the sake of argument that this fact is not disputable in this example) would you then be in favour of some kind of regulation?
- marcodiego 5y ago
  If youtube knowingly helps to spread disinformation, specially while making money with it, they should be held accountable for the harm they do to society. For the content they themselves choose to restrict... this seems more complicated.
visarga 5y ago
> it is a private service Should there be a certain size threshold after which they can't claim "private" anymore? It has a huge effect on society. > What we really need, I think, are options Yes, but they don't want to allow those options to exist. It's not in their interest. All this said, if YT would vanish from the internet I'd be devastated. So many technical talks that are not mirrored anywhere else, great courses, hobby stuff, documentaries, not to mention the breadth of music. Together with Wikipedia and arXiv I think it's one of the fundamental resources of the internet. And the content is, like Google search, generated by the users, it's our work. Does that still qualify as "private" when it gets to hoard so much of our creations? Is it their right to assert their massive size and power against content creators who are many and small, and can't coordinate to mount a meaningful opposition?

dunco 5y ago

I'm interested to know what would be the trigger point for you here that might demand regulation. are you fully libertarian and willing to endure serious negative societal effects to preserve this one type of freedom? If you could see that the lack of moderation on youtube was causing societal collapse because everyone believed things that were not true(lets say here for the sake of argument that this fact is not disputable in this example) would you then be in favour of some kind of regulation?

marcodiego 5y ago
If youtube knowingly helps to spread disinformation, specially while making money with it, they should be held accountable for the harm they do to society. For the content they themselves choose to restrict... this seems more complicated.

visarga 5y ago

> it is a private service Should there be a certain size threshold after which they can't claim "private" anymore? It has a huge effect on society. > What we really need, I think, are options Yes, but they don't want to allow those options to exist. It's not in their interest. All this said, if YT would vanish from the internet I'd be devastated. So many technical talks that are not mirrored anywhere else, great courses, hobby stuff, documentaries, not to mention the breadth of music. Together with Wikipedia and arXiv I think it's one of the fundamental resources of the internet. And the content is, like Google search, generated by the users, it's our work. Does that still qualify as "private" when it gets to hoard so much of our creations? Is it their right to assert their massive size and power against content creators who are many and small, and can't coordinate to mount a meaningful opposition?