3 ms·
> 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" arg
by 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 agoIt'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?