5 ms·

Censorship? Lmao. If a restaurant kicks me out, they aren’t starving me. The internet is open. Make your own blog.

by garbagecoder 5y ago

Proven 5y ago
majkinetor 5y ago
Comparison is not valid. Its more like MC Donalds banned you in entire world and there is no other fast food available.
- 8note 5y ago
  But Netflix and daily motion exist. Not to mention nebula and all kinds of media publishers. Not to mention YouPorn and the like that are all YouTube knockoffs with content YouTube doesn't allow
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Netflix doesn't let regular people upload to it. And the rest of them combined are probably about 10% of YouTube's size, and network effects matter.
    - garbagecoder 5y ago
      You have no constitutional right to network effects or bandwidth. Pay for a server and no one can ban you like that. I would be 100% against it if they weren’t allowed to be on the net at all, but thats not this. Consider this: is google allowed to just shut off YouTube if they want? Or are they required to keep it up for ever so you can use it as a platform?
      - robbedpeter 5y ago
        They're legally required to do their best to maintain operation and profit at as high a level is legally allowed. If employees or management try to turn it off, they get fired and replaced. YouTube is too big to fail, and heads would roll at Alphabet if there was a serious attempt to shut it down. Publicly traded companies serving as de facto public squares for hundreds of millions of people are a recent phenomena which societies are ill equipped to regulate. Let's hope things get better.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        If YouTube went away, then alternatives would suddenly get way more popular to fill the vacuum.
        Proven 5y ago
- garbagecoder 5y ago
  It’s a simple matter of embedding videos in html5. You don’t even need JavaScript. You have no right to free bandwidth. And that’s still not starving you.
- olliej 5y ago
  Except, if you're in a town that only has a McDonalds, and you violate the rules of being at said McDonalds, and McDonalds says you are not welcome here, then guess what? You aren't allowed in. Also: there's plenty of competition for posting videos, including doing it yourself. Your real argument is "I want them to be able to force YouTube to publish what a government official says, in spite of policy violations, because people only watch videos on YouTube". Which is clearly unconstitutional, but let's go with it. Should Fox News be required to provide whatever AOC tells them to broadcast, with no commentary disagreeing with her statements? After all, the people who watch Fox News only watch Fox News - you can't point to MSNBC, CNN, etc as the people who use Fox News only use Fox News. But of course not. The real issue is that these are politicians want to lie about a disease during a pandemic, promote homophobic, transphobic, anti-semitic, and generally awful content, and these platforms have policies that they very clearly that you don't get to class groups as untermensch and stay on their platform.

Censorship? Lmao. If a restaurant kicks me out, they aren’t starving me. The internet is open. Make your own blog.

Proven 5y ago

majkinetor 5y ago

Comparison is not valid. Its more like MC Donalds banned you in entire world and there is no other fast food available.

8note 5y ago
But Netflix and daily motion exist. Not to mention nebula and all kinds of media publishers. Not to mention YouPorn and the like that are all YouTube knockoffs with content YouTube doesn't allow
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Netflix doesn't let regular people upload to it. And the rest of them combined are probably about 10% of YouTube's size, and network effects matter.
  - garbagecoder 5y ago
    You have no constitutional right to network effects or bandwidth. Pay for a server and no one can ban you like that. I would be 100% against it if they weren’t allowed to be on the net at all, but thats not this. Consider this: is google allowed to just shut off YouTube if they want? Or are they required to keep it up for ever so you can use it as a platform?
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
      They're legally required to do their best to maintain operation and profit at as high a level is legally allowed. If employees or management try to turn it off, they get fired and replaced. YouTube is too big to fail, and heads would roll at Alphabet if there was a serious attempt to shut it down. Publicly traded companies serving as de facto public squares for hundreds of millions of people are a recent phenomena which societies are ill equipped to regulate. Let's hope things get better.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      If YouTube went away, then alternatives would suddenly get way more popular to fill the vacuum.
      - Proven 5y ago
garbagecoder 5y ago
It’s a simple matter of embedding videos in html5. You don’t even need JavaScript. You have no right to free bandwidth. And that’s still not starving you.
olliej 5y ago
Except, if you're in a town that only has a McDonalds, and you violate the rules of being at said McDonalds, and McDonalds says you are not welcome here, then guess what? You aren't allowed in. Also: there's plenty of competition for posting videos, including doing it yourself. Your real argument is "I want them to be able to force YouTube to publish what a government official says, in spite of policy violations, because people only watch videos on YouTube". Which is clearly unconstitutional, but let's go with it. Should Fox News be required to provide whatever AOC tells them to broadcast, with no commentary disagreeing with her statements? After all, the people who watch Fox News only watch Fox News - you can't point to MSNBC, CNN, etc as the people who use Fox News only use Fox News. But of course not. The real issue is that these are politicians want to lie about a disease during a pandemic, promote homophobic, transphobic, anti-semitic, and generally awful content, and these platforms have policies that they very clearly that you don't get to class groups as untermensch and stay on their platform.