3 ms·

Isn't the conventional wisdom now YouTube can ban or show whatever they please.

blunte 5y ago
It may be practical fact, but its is not any sort of wisdom. They claim to have rules and are expected to follow their own rules. But that's a bit like the legal system. A government or civil case against you may be completely unwarranted, but it likely will cost you time and resources (and connections to powerful people) to fight.
warning26 5y ago
Exactly -- I'm not sure why people seem convinced that YouTube should be legally compelled to provide free video hosting for anyone. Surely HN people should be aware how much that costs. If one feels that YouTube is abusing a monopoly position, then one should be in favor of breaking up YouTube. Period.
- falcolas 5y ago
  The government has more than just 'breaking up a company' in their toolbelt for handling companies with dominant marketshares. It's not a black and white situation.
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  I think in general people believe that freedom of association in business is a much more limited right than the other freedoms enshrined in the first amendment- particularly regarding not associating with people that you find disagreeable. You cannot deny business to someone because of their race or ethnicity, and generally people think this is a good thing. Legal theories aside, I think people feel that it is unjust when a monopoly or near-monopoly business acts in a manner discriminatory to one group or another.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- MikeUt 5y ago
  People can complain about something, without believing it is illegal, and without already having a legislative or other solution for the problem ready. If nothing else, it informs others about Youtube censorship - even the most radical libertarians are pro-informed consumers.
falcolas 5y ago
Yes. But, as the dominant player in the market (with over 75% of the online video platform marketshare), should they? Governments tend to put additional restrictions on the biggest players, and perhaps YouTube should be the subject of such a restriction.

It may be practical fact, but its is not any sort of wisdom. They claim to have rules and are expected to follow their own rules. But that's a bit like the legal system. A government or civil case against you may be completely unwarranted, but it likely will cost you time and resources (and connections to powerful people) to fight.

warning26 5y ago

Exactly -- I'm not sure why people seem convinced that YouTube should be legally compelled to provide free video hosting for anyone. Surely HN people should be aware how much that costs. If one feels that YouTube is abusing a monopoly position, then one should be in favor of breaking up YouTube. Period.

falcolas 5y ago
The government has more than just 'breaking up a company' in their toolbelt for handling companies with dominant marketshares. It's not a black and white situation.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
I think in general people believe that freedom of association in business is a much more limited right than the other freedoms enshrined in the first amendment- particularly regarding not associating with people that you find disagreeable. You cannot deny business to someone because of their race or ethnicity, and generally people think this is a good thing. Legal theories aside, I think people feel that it is unjust when a monopoly or near-monopoly business acts in a manner discriminatory to one group or another.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
MikeUt 5y ago
People can complain about something, without believing it is illegal, and without already having a legislative or other solution for the problem ready. If nothing else, it informs others about Youtube censorship - even the most radical libertarians are pro-informed consumers.

falcolas 5y ago

Yes. But, as the dominant player in the market (with over 75% of the online video platform marketshare), should they? Governments tend to put additional restrictions on the biggest players, and perhaps YouTube should be the subject of such a restriction.