4 ms·

Fine. You can’t force people or businesses to listen to you or broadcast your speech. That’s American liberty. That’s freedom. You can’t claim that a business

Fine. You can’t force people or businesses to listen to you or broadcast your speech. That’s American liberty. That’s freedom. You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. If you do want a digital public square look for something run by the government with a mandate to publish everything. I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t be too happy with that either… too many libtards, too many nazis, too many racists, too many whatevers…

InvertedRhodium 5y ago
> You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. Why not? We place some pretty serious obligations on a few industries - one example is electricity providers of last resort.
- bduerst 5y ago
  >Why not? Electricity is deemed a common utility and a regulated, granted natural monopoly - one considered a necessary requirement for all citizens and organizations. Video streaming is not a monopoly, and no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace change the fact that there are a number easily accessible competitors.
  - abernard1 5y ago
    > Video streaming is not a monopoly It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. There were plenty of competitors back then, just as now, and yet the Sherman Antitrust Act happened. The network power of these organizations makes them monopolies even aside from market share. In Sherman era anti-trust, "Build your own rail network" would not have flown as an argument, because it was clear that coercive actions to force people into a different network were problematic. The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. You can read the Sherman Act, court opinions during that time, and the argument of it removing centralization of power. The "predatory pricing" argument is a recent invention, ironically created with right-wing judicial activism, and neither historical or textual in nature.
    - bduerst 5y ago
      >It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity make it a monopoly. Standard oil was the only accessible supplier in the market in many places. The video streaming and hosting market has many easily accessible suppliers wherever there is internet access. >The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. Whether or not the government can regulate a monopoly is not being debated here. Nobody is talking about that straw man.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. You host somewhere else and YouTube isn't going to surface your video to their users, and neither is Google since they're the same company. This isn't a problem if there are dozens of video hosting services or search engines that all have equal market share, but there aren't.
        zwirbl 5y ago
        So discovery is now a basic right and Youtube must enable everyones boring or inciting videos to be discovered? Can't you just share a link on $SOCIAL_MEDIA like others do?
        awb 5y ago
        You don’t have a right to have your views displayed on YouTube any more than you have a right to have your opinion piece published in the New York Times. Private companies are free to curate their content as they see fit and you can choose to consume it or not. These independent content creators and journalists can all self host. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that every view gets maximum amplification on private networks. It means that the government won’t take steps to repress the speech, which they aren’t.
        bduerst 5y ago
        >It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace make it a monopoly. You are not entitled to being discovered in competitive markets, and forcing suppliers to host your content is anti-competitive.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    Pray tell, what are those YouTube competitors with non-negligible market share? I'd love to move there and find all my favourite channels (or at least some chunk of them) posting their videos there.
    - ClashTheBunny 5y ago
      Isn't TikTok bigger than youtube now?
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
        That's optimised for short-form videos, isn't it? It's also extremely addictive, so it doesn't speak well of the market if the main competition to the #1 player comes at the price of addiction.
        bduerst 5y ago
        >No True Scotsman TikTok is still a competitor. Facebook, Vimeo, Reddit, Twitch, etc. all popular, easily accessible competitors as well.
    - awb 5y ago
      A free market doesn’t mean you get whatever you want wherever you want it. It just means there’s no unsurmountable barrier to entry into the market. Microsoft, Apple, Spotify, Netflix, etc. + VC money, all have the money and means to compete directly with YouTube if they choose. The market for “I want to watch Trump claim he stole the election without a disclaimer in the description” might not be that huge. As others have pointed out, creating news about election misinformation is still no problem on YT provided it’s explained as misinformation and not just provided without context. Also, these content providers can self-host their video content and promote their content as they see fit. You have to decide if bookmarking the sites of your favorite content providers is a better option than accepting YT’s content guidelines. But you don’t get to demand that YT host whatever content suits your views. They can curate their platform as they see fit and you can consume it or not as you see fit.
- imnotlost 5y ago
  If it’s that serious and important - nationalize them and have the federal government run it. Or you could call your congress people and ask them to increase funding for PBS or NPR or whatever. Or start a tax funded service. Or start your own service. I’m sure you’ll welcome everyone’s suggestions on how to run it. Or is it that you want someone else to run it, you don’t want to pay anything for it, don’t want to pay taxes for it, but you do want a say in how it’s run? (Not you personally but y’all)
  - mark_l_watson 5y ago
    I automatically donate money to Democracy Now and PBS each month because I like to support mostly liberal news that sometimes carries a different emphasis than more mainstream news. I am voting with my wallet. That said, I hate to see conservative or any other opinions censored, and this is what YouTube is doing, because if we give up on true free speech then I think that bodes ill for our society long term.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
When the government mandates people to stay home via lock down the definition of public square is null and void. You've just removed the right to assemble. You can't take away the public square and then demand people only air grievances in the public square. The line between corporations and government is so blurred online that we must blur the lines between public and private spaces online.
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
Free speech was never made with the fact that 5 monopolistic multi-nationals would facilate damned near all speech. Its amazing watching progressives grovel at the feet of corporations bc you agree with their censorship, and for free market conservatives to turn on them bc the corporations they rallied their whole lives turned on them. I want Twitter and YouTube treated like my ISP, or my electric company.

InvertedRhodium 5y ago

> You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. Why not? We place some pretty serious obligations on a few industries - one example is electricity providers of last resort.

bduerst 5y ago
>Why not? Electricity is deemed a common utility and a regulated, granted natural monopoly - one considered a necessary requirement for all citizens and organizations. Video streaming is not a monopoly, and no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace change the fact that there are a number easily accessible competitors.
- abernard1 5y ago
  > Video streaming is not a monopoly It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. There were plenty of competitors back then, just as now, and yet the Sherman Antitrust Act happened. The network power of these organizations makes them monopolies even aside from market share. In Sherman era anti-trust, "Build your own rail network" would not have flown as an argument, because it was clear that coercive actions to force people into a different network were problematic. The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. You can read the Sherman Act, court opinions during that time, and the argument of it removing centralization of power. The "predatory pricing" argument is a recent invention, ironically created with right-wing judicial activism, and neither historical or textual in nature.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    >It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity make it a monopoly. Standard oil was the only accessible supplier in the market in many places. The video streaming and hosting market has many easily accessible suppliers wherever there is internet access. >The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. Whether or not the government can regulate a monopoly is not being debated here. Nobody is talking about that straw man.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. You host somewhere else and YouTube isn't going to surface your video to their users, and neither is Google since they're the same company. This isn't a problem if there are dozens of video hosting services or search engines that all have equal market share, but there aren't.
      - zwirbl 5y ago
        So discovery is now a basic right and Youtube must enable everyones boring or inciting videos to be discovered? Can't you just share a link on $SOCIAL_MEDIA like others do?
      - awb 5y ago
        You don’t have a right to have your views displayed on YouTube any more than you have a right to have your opinion piece published in the New York Times. Private companies are free to curate their content as they see fit and you can choose to consume it or not. These independent content creators and journalists can all self host. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that every view gets maximum amplification on private networks. It means that the government won’t take steps to repress the speech, which they aren’t.
      - bduerst 5y ago
        >It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace make it a monopoly. You are not entitled to being discovered in competitive markets, and forcing suppliers to host your content is anti-competitive.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  Pray tell, what are those YouTube competitors with non-negligible market share? I'd love to move there and find all my favourite channels (or at least some chunk of them) posting their videos there.
  - ClashTheBunny 5y ago
    Isn't TikTok bigger than youtube now?
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      That's optimised for short-form videos, isn't it? It's also extremely addictive, so it doesn't speak well of the market if the main competition to the #1 player comes at the price of addiction.
      - bduerst 5y ago
        >No True Scotsman TikTok is still a competitor. Facebook, Vimeo, Reddit, Twitch, etc. all popular, easily accessible competitors as well.
  - awb 5y ago
    A free market doesn’t mean you get whatever you want wherever you want it. It just means there’s no unsurmountable barrier to entry into the market. Microsoft, Apple, Spotify, Netflix, etc. + VC money, all have the money and means to compete directly with YouTube if they choose. The market for “I want to watch Trump claim he stole the election without a disclaimer in the description” might not be that huge. As others have pointed out, creating news about election misinformation is still no problem on YT provided it’s explained as misinformation and not just provided without context. Also, these content providers can self-host their video content and promote their content as they see fit. You have to decide if bookmarking the sites of your favorite content providers is a better option than accepting YT’s content guidelines. But you don’t get to demand that YT host whatever content suits your views. They can curate their platform as they see fit and you can consume it or not as you see fit.
imnotlost 5y ago
If it’s that serious and important - nationalize them and have the federal government run it. Or you could call your congress people and ask them to increase funding for PBS or NPR or whatever. Or start a tax funded service. Or start your own service. I’m sure you’ll welcome everyone’s suggestions on how to run it. Or is it that you want someone else to run it, you don’t want to pay anything for it, don’t want to pay taxes for it, but you do want a say in how it’s run? (Not you personally but y’all)
- mark_l_watson 5y ago
  I automatically donate money to Democracy Now and PBS each month because I like to support mostly liberal news that sometimes carries a different emphasis than more mainstream news. I am voting with my wallet. That said, I hate to see conservative or any other opinions censored, and this is what YouTube is doing, because if we give up on true free speech then I think that bodes ill for our society long term.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

When the government mandates people to stay home via lock down the definition of public square is null and void. You've just removed the right to assemble. You can't take away the public square and then demand people only air grievances in the public square. The line between corporations and government is so blurred online that we must blur the lines between public and private spaces online.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago

Free speech was never made with the fact that 5 monopolistic multi-nationals would facilate damned near all speech. Its amazing watching progressives grovel at the feet of corporations bc you agree with their censorship, and for free market conservatives to turn on them bc the corporations they rallied their whole lives turned on them. I want Twitter and YouTube treated like my ISP, or my electric company.