4 ms·

> Phones and roads and the internet become inherently less useful if there is more than one network. Videos do not become less useful if you have to get some of

> Phones and roads and the internet become inherently less useful if there is more than one network. Videos do not become less useful if you have to get some of them from one provider and others from another. That is not true, though. Self-publishing video on my personal site has effectively no utility compared to publishing it on YouTube. For my job (and the job of, thousands? millions?), it is the only game in town. An ISP comparison would be hosting my personal site on The Internet vs. a splinternet.

juve1996 4y ago
> That is not true, though. Self-publishing video on my personal site has effectively no utility compared to publishing it on YouTube. For my job (and the job of, thousands? millions?), it is the only game in town. This statement is false. There are plenty of websites that self publish video and receive utility for it. Just because your unpopular video on your unpopular website doesn't get utility, doesn't mean others don't. On top of that, plenty of videos posted on YouTube also get no utility.
- mysecretaccount 4y ago
  > This statement is false. There are plenty of websites that self publish video and receive utility for it. This is a "0.001 is technically greater than 0" argument that could be made for ISPs as well. Do you accept that there are thousands/millions of people who rely on access to YT to support themselves, and have an income dependent on that site that would vanish if they were expelled from it?
  - juve1996 4y ago
    It's a strong argument for ISPs to be a utility because of the access ISPs provide. Not just for business, but for survival. YouTube doesn't come close to the scale or level of importance, plus it is easily replaceable. TikTok just overtook it. Multiple competitors with the same order of magnitude of users. > Do you accept that there are thousands/millions of people who rely on access to YT to support themselves, and have an income dependent on that site that would vanish if they were expelled from it? Do you accept that all of these content creators signed an agreement to use YouTube's platform, which is a private entity? If the agreement is illegal then it is a civil matter and they have remedy - the court system. This isn't a matter of free speech.
    - mysecretaccount 4y ago
      > Do you accept that all of these content creators signed an agreement to use YouTube's platform, which is a private entity? Do you accept that users sign an agreement with their ISP, also a private entity? Why should the ISP, a private entity, not be able to censor traffic for which it provides the infrastructure? Because it (like social media) has few competitors?
lisper 4y ago
> Self-publishing video on my personal site has effectively no utility compared to publishing it on YouTube. For my job (and the job of, thousands? millions?), it is the only game in town. The usefulness of public utilities is measured relative to consumers, not producers. You have a right to publish. You do not have a right to monetize. You don't even have a right to an audience. All you have a right to is a potential audience. If someone wants to watch your self-published video, they can. The problem is not the YT is a utility, the problem is that YT is owned by Google and Google has an effective monopoly on on-line advertising.

juve1996 4y ago

> That is not true, though. Self-publishing video on my personal site has effectively no utility compared to publishing it on YouTube. For my job (and the job of, thousands? millions?), it is the only game in town. This statement is false. There are plenty of websites that self publish video and receive utility for it. Just because your unpopular video on your unpopular website doesn't get utility, doesn't mean others don't. On top of that, plenty of videos posted on YouTube also get no utility.

mysecretaccount 4y ago
> This statement is false. There are plenty of websites that self publish video and receive utility for it. This is a "0.001 is technically greater than 0" argument that could be made for ISPs as well. Do you accept that there are thousands/millions of people who rely on access to YT to support themselves, and have an income dependent on that site that would vanish if they were expelled from it?
- juve1996 4y ago
  It's a strong argument for ISPs to be a utility because of the access ISPs provide. Not just for business, but for survival. YouTube doesn't come close to the scale or level of importance, plus it is easily replaceable. TikTok just overtook it. Multiple competitors with the same order of magnitude of users. > Do you accept that there are thousands/millions of people who rely on access to YT to support themselves, and have an income dependent on that site that would vanish if they were expelled from it? Do you accept that all of these content creators signed an agreement to use YouTube's platform, which is a private entity? If the agreement is illegal then it is a civil matter and they have remedy - the court system. This isn't a matter of free speech.
  - mysecretaccount 4y ago
    > Do you accept that all of these content creators signed an agreement to use YouTube's platform, which is a private entity? Do you accept that users sign an agreement with their ISP, also a private entity? Why should the ISP, a private entity, not be able to censor traffic for which it provides the infrastructure? Because it (like social media) has few competitors?

lisper 4y ago

> Self-publishing video on my personal site has effectively no utility compared to publishing it on YouTube. For my job (and the job of, thousands? millions?), it is the only game in town. The usefulness of public utilities is measured relative to consumers, not producers. You have a right to publish. You do not have a right to monetize. You don't even have a right to an audience. All you have a right to is a potential audience. If someone wants to watch your self-published video, they can. The problem is not the YT is a utility, the problem is that YT is owned by Google and Google has an effective monopoly on on-line advertising.