3 ms·

But there are both. Youtube is a platform that will host anyone's videos. Youtube is a publisher that chooses which videos to display (and where to display th

But there are both. Youtube is a platform that will host anyone's videos. Youtube is a publisher that chooses which videos to display (and where to display them). Are you essentially saying you would be satisfied if videos that violate Youtube's terms of service (without being illegal) were only available by special direct link and rendered on a page containing no "related" videos? That way Youtube as a platform will still host any legal video uploaded by anyone regardless of it's content while Youtube as a publisher does not publish anything that goes against their terms of service.

infogulch 5y ago
I don't see a problem with forcing companies to pick a lane. If YT wants to publish its own content split it out into YouTube Publishing Inc., and the platform treats it like any other content.
- shuntress 5y ago
  This is the type of thing people mean when they say "legislation has not caught up to technology". Where do you define the boundaries? How do you enforce it? If the boundary is "Platforms host video. Publishers distribute video.", who is going to make sure they every video sent through YouTubeThePublisher.com is loaded from some other domain that is not controlled by YouTubeThePublisher. I agree we need some kind of regulation to foster a healthier competitive environment but it is a complex problem that lacks a single simple solution.
guerrilla 5y ago
> Youtube is a platform that will host anyone's videos. This isn't true? They don't host porn and many other things, so they aren't a common carrier.
- shuntress 5y ago
  > This isn't true? They don't host porn and many other things, so they aren't a common carrier. This is a reductionist gotcha? YouTube is obviously the de facto english-language video host on the internet. That position is weakening now vs TikTok and Facebook/Instagram. Porn is a good example of the overlap between platform/publisher and how the publisher keeping it off the platform has allowed competition to exist in that niche. That could probably form the basis for a strong argument in favor of an enforced separation of hosting and publishing.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    > This is a reductionist gotcha? I don't think you understood the post you responded to. The point was that if they were a common carrier then they would not censor anything that isn't illegal. They censor a lot.

infogulch 5y ago

I don't see a problem with forcing companies to pick a lane. If YT wants to publish its own content split it out into YouTube Publishing Inc., and the platform treats it like any other content.

shuntress 5y ago
This is the type of thing people mean when they say "legislation has not caught up to technology". Where do you define the boundaries? How do you enforce it? If the boundary is "Platforms host video. Publishers distribute video.", who is going to make sure they every video sent through YouTubeThePublisher.com is loaded from some other domain that is not controlled by YouTubeThePublisher. I agree we need some kind of regulation to foster a healthier competitive environment but it is a complex problem that lacks a single simple solution.

guerrilla 5y ago

> Youtube is a platform that will host anyone's videos. This isn't true? They don't host porn and many other things, so they aren't a common carrier.

shuntress 5y ago
> This isn't true? They don't host porn and many other things, so they aren't a common carrier. This is a reductionist gotcha? YouTube is obviously the de facto english-language video host on the internet. That position is weakening now vs TikTok and Facebook/Instagram. Porn is a good example of the overlap between platform/publisher and how the publisher keeping it off the platform has allowed competition to exist in that niche. That could probably form the basis for a strong argument in favor of an enforced separation of hosting and publishing.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > This is a reductionist gotcha? I don't think you understood the post you responded to. The point was that if they were a common carrier then they would not censor anything that isn't illegal. They censor a lot.