7 ms·

I don’t get why people think youtube should be forced to host stuff they don’t want to host. Youtube should be socialized and forced to become a content-neutral

• pokstad 5y ago
  No one is arguing about YouTube being forced to do things. People are discussing how sad it is that YouTube has gone down that road.
  • jmull 5y ago
    It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? It’s sad that not everyone agrees with all the choices they make? Doesn’t seem sad to me. The alternative, where youtube cannot choose what content to host, seems sad to me.
    • BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
      Google is a nearly two trillion dollar company. I shed no tears for “forcing” them to host speech they don’t like. My desire to give companies rights diminishes with scale.
      • jmull 5y ago
        Fortunately, in the US, we have the first amendment as a shield against authoritarians who would dictate the content we see.
        • car_analogy 5y ago
          Against government authoritarians. You have no shield against private oligopolies.
          • rootusrootus 5y ago
            Who else but the government is going to force Google to host content against their wishes?
          • lordnacho 5y ago
            Really? What's the difference? It's not whether it's public or private making the decisions (they are both considering the amount spent in lobbying), it's the degree of control you ought to worry about. There needs to be an actual free market where people have a realistic set of alternatives. Pointing out public versus private is IMO misidentifying the problem.
            • shadowgovt 5y ago
              > Really? What's the difference? For starters, Google doesn't get to raise a private army or arrest The Hill for misuse of their services.
              • lordnacho 5y ago
                Historical various East India Companies did exactly that while also holding monopolies. With enough size and political influence they could do it, it just hasn't been in fashion.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
    • bko 5y ago
      Let be real here. It's very likely the former guy may run again. You may be against that, as would I. But I think its pretty creepy that a handful of large tech CEOs will be able to get together and prevent that from happening by shutting him off from every social media platform and biasing search results, even so far as censoring our private communications via FB messenger, email or similar chat apps. You want to argue he did something illegal, should be in prison, should not be allowed to run? Fine, that's what the court system and respective political parties are for. But please don't tell me it's completely cool that tech CEOs get to decide who can and can't run. You may like the side they fall on this time, but how confident are you that you'll agree in the future? What if leadership changes? What do you think would happen when a politician has a credible shot of winning on a promise to break them up?
      • rootusrootus 5y ago
        > get together That's probably the moment they could face regulation. Individually, it's their platform to choose what they want to host or not.
        • bko 5y ago
          Do you think it was weird that when a damning article about a presidential candidate's son came out a few weeks before the election, every single media company and social network decided at the same exact time not to cover the story? Even so much as censoring the one paper that carried it and on private messages between people? Twitter, Facebook, NY Times, NPR and others. The former guy got banned on all the services all at once. Even tiktok which he was not on. Hell, even grindr banned him. There may not be direct coordination (maybe there is), but there's a signal and no one likes to make waves They all took a different direction about the "pee tape": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele-dossier.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/opinion/comey-book-steele... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-you-right-like-getting-it-on-tape.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/magazine/nothing-proves-y... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-private-spies-news-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/business/media/spooked-pr... For more: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee+tape https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+trump+pee...
    • jasonfarnon 5y ago
      Sad that they decided to start "choosing what content to host" after everyone has become dependent on it. It's the bait and switch.
    • ekianjo 5y ago
      > It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? There is virtually no competition to youtube in the video streaming space (in terms of sheer reach and volume), so choices that youtube make have clear political implications on what voices get heard.
    • downandout 5y ago
      It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? As I suspect you know, his point was that it’s sad that YouTube is making politically motivated censorship decisions, just like China would. While we all know that Silicon Valley leans left, I think that those of us who want good things for the world would like to believe that these companies can check their politics at the door when it comes to running platforms that serve people across the political spectrum. Sadly, that’s not the case. If YouTube identified itself as a partisan platform where speech that is not left leaning is in danger of being curtailed (which is what it is), I wouldn’t have a problem with these actions. But it masquerades as a neutral platform that is open to all, in the same way that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox masquerade as news outlets. That is a threat to democracy, because it creates the impression that only content which aligns with the platform owner’s political ideology is newsworthy or acceptable for viewing, and anything else is fringe.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • FeepingCreature 5y ago
    No hang on, I'm a free speech maximalist and I totally want YouTube to be forced to do things.
• prepend 5y ago
  Why should broadcasters be forced to host debates? Broadcasters are forced to do all kinds of stuff. In Canada they have to carry a certain percentage of Canadian content.
  • vel0city 5y ago
    Broadcasting uses a highly limited resource, local TV freqiencies. Especially until recently, these were really limited to a dozen or so channels per metro area. There are far more than a dozen websites out there.
    • prepend 5y ago
      DNS names are limited spectrum, right? Granted a US government monopoly. Last mile delivery by telephone and cable companies have government right of way monopolies. YouTube can’t be watched without government grants. And the Canadian (and other country) content laws apply to non-spectrum using channels. But all this is silly. The phone company can’t decide to cancel my phone call because of what I’m saying. A law can stop YouTube.
      • vel0city 5y ago
        Many people historically only had a single phone provider available at their home. Last mile internet isn't competitive for most people, I would agree they should be considered a common carrier. This concept of "common carrier" is important in this debate. A train line that is the sole means of commerce in and out of a town is a common carrier. There's no competitors really possible to enter into that market. For that train line to decide to not run certain cargo outside of safety concerns is to then control all the commerce with no reasonable competitor. Literally right now I'm watching streaming video content hosted from some service other than YouTube. I probably spend less than an hour a week watching YouTube content. It's hardly the only rail line in town, nor is it the only way I can view video content. Now if the only viable ISP said "you can't connect to YouTube, if you don't like it sell your house and move to the next town over" then yeah that's a common carrier and shouldn't be allowed to do that. DNS names aren't limited by the US government. There are lots of TLDs which are controlled by other governments. And largely they're pretty much managed by lots of different corporations. Either way, the government directly getting involved in taking over your domain name without any due process just to silence your speech probably does become a first amendment issue at least for US nationals. Either way, they're massively less limited than how many effective TV freqiencies or phone providers are in a given metro area.
• rmccue 5y ago
  Aside from whether that’s happening here, there’s an argument to be made that an equivalent of common carrier laws make sense for the largest platforms. With the centralisation of attention onto those platforms, deplatforming effectively lets them act as a law unto themselves, and I think there’s a fair argument that in exchange for their outsized impact on society, those platforms have obligations to it as well. (I don’t necessarily think it’d be the best idea for the most part though.)
• user3939382 5y ago
  > why people think youtube should be forced to host stuff they don’t want to host For the same reasons that AT&T can't terminate your phone service if they hear you talking about something that's opposed to the political preferences of AT&T or its leadership. These companies have become the public square and the law needs to be updated to reflect that. If they have to become public utilities fine. There's a big difference between a small company being coerced by the government into some action, versus the same action on a very small handful of multi-billion dollar companies that have a collective monopoly on our entire public and political discourse. What's really bizarre is how the left is supposed to be opposed to, e.g. Citizens United, and the establishment neoliberal take is ultra-pro corporate rights and autonomy and 0 government intervention. IMHO thinking a few companies should be free to make a cooperative agreement and shut whoever they want out of communicating on these popular platforms is a radical right-wing position.
  • jmull 5y ago
    Youtube doesn’t have any kind of monopoly on posting videos to the internet. What they do have is a brand and a social network that surfaces, promotes, and moderates video content to drive engagement and ad views. They’ve grown large by moderating and curating content but now that they’ve done so they should no longer be allowed to moderate and curate content? Makes no sense whatsoever. You’re pronouncing youtube a “public square”, which should therefore be seized by the government… But what is this extremely strong claim based on? youtube is just one of an endless series of options for posting videos on the internet.
    • user3939382 5y ago
      > Youtube doesn’t have any kind of monopoly on posting videos to the internet Of course they do. There are channels that can be removed that would instantly lose access to millions of monthly viewers that can't practically be replaced anywhere. They have a monopoly on that type of reach (the most important type), and especially when these platforms decide to blacklist in concert. > now that they’ve done so they should no longer be allowed to moderate and curate content Yes, because once your business decisions have the power to decide who gets elected President, for example, it's in a different class and has to be regulated differently than a corner flower shop. There are many examples of laws and regulations that apply to business based on size. > what is this extremely strong claim based on? youtube is just one of an endless series of options for posting videos on the internet Again, it's not one of endless, it is entirely unique -- for many channels, their reach on YouTube is not replaceable anywhere. That's like saying, AT&T can shut off your phone service for your political opinions because you can always go meet someone in person to talk. That's simply not how we've historically agreed to interpret the obligations of massive communications platforms, and there's a very good reason for that. I don't want who gets to speak to the public decided by some faceless, unelected tech oligarchs. That's a dystopia. "They only get to decide if you easily get access to an audience of millions, you can always get an audience of 5" is a deeply flawed argument.
• psychlops 5y ago
  Companies with monopolistic power and revolving door political hirings need to be held to a different standard as they are beyond competing for views and shape narratives. It doesn't matter whether they are shaping it politically or profitably or via AI for clicks. It isn't neutral and drowns out or outright eliminates competing views.
  • DoctorOW 5y ago
    Can you give an example? What's a view that's been eliminated?
    • jasonfarnon 5y ago
      What about the very subject of this thread? Not a view worth keeping around?
      • DoctorOW 5y ago
        That's not been eliminated. Quite a few people believe the election was stolen. Also, it's not a view worth keeping around. There's no evidence to support it and it's just used to justify violence and division.
        • adam_arthur 5y ago
          There's no evidence to support the fact that corporate greed in an otherwise competitive market leads to inflation, yet we have plenty of politicians pushing that. There's no evidence supporting price controls to be an effective way to fight inflation, as was shown to produce awful results in the 70s among many other eras, yet we have politicians pushing for that. There's no evidence to support that nominal wages rising, but at a rate lower than inflation leads to people being better off, yet we have politicians pushing this. I think Google should ban any videos promoting these effectively disproven and dangerous economic ideas.
          • lordnacho 5y ago
• billfor 5y ago
  Because, like telephone companies youtube can be considered a monopoly and classified as a common carrier, as some states and proposed federal laws have argued.
  • jmull 5y ago
    What monopoly???
    • ekianjo 5y ago
      not a monopoly on paper, but a monopoly in terms of reach. When 99% of videos seen on the web are from youtube, can you pretend it's not akin to some kind of monopoly?
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • scarface74 5y ago
        if you want to host your own video - pay for it.
        • selfhoster11 5y ago
          Yeah, let's shut out all people who cannot afford that, or who don't have access to the global banking system.
          • scarface74 5y ago
            So because you can’t afford something, that means it’s the responsibility of another private party to publish your video for free? If you think it is a right that people should have, talk to your representative and get the government to create GovTube where anyone can post any type of conspiracy crap they desire.
        • ekianjo 5y ago
          and have effectively zero reach. Thanks for proving my point.
• nomilk 5y ago
  Bad outcomes are assured when people who simply don't care make decisions that affect those who do. Between the trio of media, tech, and government there's enormous control over what we hear and learn about. The filters they apply are powerful, yet inconsistent, and often populist, political, or irrational. These 3 groups have this control, yet are incapable of using it to optimise for citizenry well-being.
• DoItToMe81 5y ago
  Youtube is a major information source for two billion people, that has largely supplanted the online 'public space' of video hosts. No other video site is remotely comparable, and it's not even feasible for the vast majority of individuals, companies or even governments to compete with it. Google also controls the largest search platform, so good luck growing that 'conspiracy theory video' platform. I don't believe any entity should ever have the power to frame what is and is not acceptable to believe to such a large amount of the world, be it Google, Facebook or a government.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > it's not even feasible for the vast majority of individuals, companies or even governments to compete with it. You haven't defined what "compete with it" actually means here. > Google also controls the largest search platform If it was only a search platform, this would hardly matter, because search engines are not hard to replace. But Google search is merely the entry point to a much larger system (notably, a vast online ad platform and data collection system), and that's a problem.