4 ms·
Yes, they are exercising this control on their platforms. However, considering how the new generation's source of information is the internet and that google's
by mrcsharp 5y ago
Yes, they are exercising this control on their platforms. However, considering how the new generation's source of information is the internet and that google's search engine market share is 92% [1] and YouTube market share is 90% [2]. Isn't it alarming when one entity (google) decides what information 90%+ of the public have access to?
And yes, Sky News still have their website, for now, but do you also expect them to build their own Internet when their ISP bans them, their DNS records get purged, and their hosting provider shuts down their servers?
I'm sorry but it is not utter nonsense to expect an entity that 90% of the public rely on every day to not have such control over the public's access to information.
[1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/search-engine-market-share https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/search-engine-market-share
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of-leading-internet-video-portals https://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-o...
- oliwarner 5y agoYou're talking about hundreds of private companies and utilities all denying them service. Your slippery slope is a fantasy scenario that even internationally recognised hate and pirate sites avoid. 4Chan thrives, KiwiFarms plods on, ThePirateBay still has its domain a host and is still listed in places without relevant court orders. Yes, it denies them some access to market but while everyone goes to YouTube and Google, that's Google's market to curate as they see fit. Don't like it, encourage people to use other services, as I'm sure Sky Oz will now.