4 ms·

Of course the issue is that Google is not just a “private party” like you or I. It is a 190,000 person organization worth almost 2 trillion dollars. They have

Of course the issue is that Google is not just a “private party” like you or I. It is a 190,000 person organization worth almost 2 trillion dollars. They have a huge market share for monetized video hosting. If there were 100 nearly equally sized video platforms your argument would me much more persuasive, but at YouTube’s size, to me, they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process. If Google does not want to do this, perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up.

coldpie 3y ago
> they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Protected classes are the closest thing, but I think you'll have a tough time getting "person accused of being a jerk" to be declared a protected class. > perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up This, however, there's tons of precedent for. It's the right solution, and we should absolutely be breaking all of the big tech companies up. The current FTC & DOJ are heading in that direction[1,2]. If you like that direction, it's something to consider when you're filling out the ballot each November. [1] The first stab from the FTC is at Amazon: "if the FTC succeeds in court, it could result in a forced breakup or restructuring of Amazon" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/amazons-final-talks-with-ftc-unlikely-to-thwart-antitrust-lawsuit/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/amazons-final-ta... [2] And DOJ is taking a stab at Google: "[The DOJ] might even become emboldened to break up some of the biggest tech companies" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/heres-exactly-what-google-will-argue-to-fight-the-dojs-antitrust-claims/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/heres-exactly-wh...
- riversflow 3y ago
  > There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Should a private company have those rights? We meed corporate reform in America.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    Should the people who work at & run companies have freedom of association? Yes, I think they should. There are narrow exceptions for things like utilities, where a monopoly is the only sane way to run the service (we can't have 12 separate gas/power/water/sewer/phone/internet lines run to every house), but that situation doesn't apply to an Internet video hosting company. We already have a well-established mechanism for reigning in companies that are too powerful: anti-trust law. All we need to do is enforce it.
- Izkata 3y ago
  > There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Google is a public company
  - beej71 3y ago
    It's a publicly-traded private company, not a government-owned public company.
- SmartJerry 3y ago
  The way to enforce it is with with monopoly or collusion rules. Google has 39% of all digital advertising worldwide according to a quick Google search. However, I think digital advertising is too broad to even be considered a single category - you should have digital advertising of images, text, video, sound, and so on. Television and radio are different categories, why would you not do the same online? They have the capability to be a monopoly or collude with enough companies to exert monopoly power that they can abuse in some of those categories. Combine this with the fact that they receive special legal protections from liability for user posted content. Their protections against user content should be less if they are editorializing or treating content differently the content. I don't think they should be liable for user posted content, but they should have a responsibility to treat content equally, subject to fines. If they are going to demonetize or ban Russell Brand for a unverified news story, then if their CEO or even the president of the US receive an unverified news story against them (as the president has), they should get the exact same treatment. This is because rules enforced unequally harm content creators and users. The harm comes by way of lying to people. If every person who likes the color blue is getting demonetized, without notifying users of the rule, but every person who likes the color red gets promoted up, a user would be tricked into thinking the whole world likes red. That harm is tangible enough when it comes to important or political topics to deserve fines. The harm coming from not explicitly saying your rules. We protect a consumer from tobacco by forcing them to tell the truth about the product. THe same goes for tech. I'm sure some will say well these kind of lies aren't that bad, but they are, these are peoples lives and for many their source of income and to get treated differently on a whim tricks the content creators (essentially employees) as well as the users.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  There is tons of precedent for something like this. It's called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric, water, sewer, and trash utilities, internet service providers, etc. The basic idea is that if a carrier is at least a quasi-monopoly, they have to provide service to anyone unless they have a "good reason." Of course what these reasons might be will vary depending on the business, but would generally not include being accused of a crime. The electric company is not allowed to cut off your power if you are accused (or even convicted) of sexual assault, as long as you pay your bill on time and don't vandalize their equipment etc.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    No matter how much you want it to be, YouTube is not a utility. Antitrust law is the right remedy here. Solve this through market competition by breaking up the big companies, not speech stifling regulations.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    All of the entities you mentioned exclusive of internet platforms have in common that they transport goods or passengers for a fee and are open to the public. Internet platforms are not common carriers despite how badly some want to thwart private property rights.
    - cameldrv 3y ago
      Telephone services and internet services in some states are considered common carriers (net neutrality). In the case of an oligopoly like the streaming video market, it makes sense to force large players to make their platforms available on a non-discriminatory basis. I agree that breaking up YouTube would also solve the problem though.
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        Right, because telcos and isps carry passengers or goods for a fee and they are open to the public. That’s why they are common carriers. Where you miss the mark is that it does not, in fact, make any sense whatsoever and indeed would be illegal to commandeer someone’s computer and force it to do things the owner does not want it to do. This is quite foundational to our private property regime.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  Have you ever had your phone call interrupted because the phone company didn't like what you were talking about? Have you ever had your TV get disabled because your cable company didn't like the content you were watching? 140 years ago in the age of telegram, I suspect they weren't censoring messages they didn't like either.
  - jayrot 3y ago
    This is such a disingenuous argument, it's painful. Did someone's internet connection get disabled?
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/09/archives/nixon-critics-complain-of-rejected-telegrams.html https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/09/archives/nixon-critics-co... I was able to read at least part of the article without a subscription. Folks wanted to send Nixon some pointed complaints (go figure, who could have imagined) and telegraph operators weren’t letting them. Seems telegraph companies left matters of decency up to the discretion of the operator, at least by 1970 (and I bet you’d get a lot of “you may take your business elsewhere” for various sorts of messages you tried to send, before that, to the point that much speech was de-facto banned)
waffleiron 3y ago
> If Google does not want to do this, perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up. If the people or the state want google to do this the should make a law to require it to do so. If they don’t comply then, please break them up, sue them, fine them.
- noslenwerdna 3y ago
  That seems to be what the person you're responding to is proposing. I think they realize this is not currently the law...

coldpie 3y ago

> they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness and formal process There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Protected classes are the closest thing, but I think you'll have a tough time getting "person accused of being a jerk" to be declared a protected class. > perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up This, however, there's tons of precedent for. It's the right solution, and we should absolutely be breaking all of the big tech companies up. The current FTC & DOJ are heading in that direction[1,2]. If you like that direction, it's something to consider when you're filling out the ballot each November. [1] The first stab from the FTC is at Amazon: "if the FTC succeeds in court, it could result in a forced breakup or restructuring of Amazon" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/amazons-final-talks-with-ftc-unlikely-to-thwart-antitrust-lawsuit/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/amazons-final-ta... [2] And DOJ is taking a stab at Google: "[The DOJ] might even become emboldened to break up some of the biggest tech companies" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/heres-exactly-what-google-will-argue-to-fight-the-dojs-antitrust-claims/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/heres-exactly-wh...

riversflow 3y ago
> There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Should a private company have those rights? We meed corporate reform in America.
- coldpie 3y ago
  Should the people who work at & run companies have freedom of association? Yes, I think they should. There are narrow exceptions for things like utilities, where a monopoly is the only sane way to run the service (we can't have 12 separate gas/power/water/sewer/phone/internet lines run to every house), but that situation doesn't apply to an Internet video hosting company. We already have a well-established mechanism for reigning in companies that are too powerful: anti-trust law. All we need to do is enforce it.
Izkata 3y ago
> There isn't really a way to enforce this that doesn't violate a private company's rights. Google is a public company
- beej71 3y ago
  It's a publicly-traded private company, not a government-owned public company.
SmartJerry 3y ago
The way to enforce it is with with monopoly or collusion rules. Google has 39% of all digital advertising worldwide according to a quick Google search. However, I think digital advertising is too broad to even be considered a single category - you should have digital advertising of images, text, video, sound, and so on. Television and radio are different categories, why would you not do the same online? They have the capability to be a monopoly or collude with enough companies to exert monopoly power that they can abuse in some of those categories. Combine this with the fact that they receive special legal protections from liability for user posted content. Their protections against user content should be less if they are editorializing or treating content differently the content. I don't think they should be liable for user posted content, but they should have a responsibility to treat content equally, subject to fines. If they are going to demonetize or ban Russell Brand for a unverified news story, then if their CEO or even the president of the US receive an unverified news story against them (as the president has), they should get the exact same treatment. This is because rules enforced unequally harm content creators and users. The harm comes by way of lying to people. If every person who likes the color blue is getting demonetized, without notifying users of the rule, but every person who likes the color red gets promoted up, a user would be tricked into thinking the whole world likes red. That harm is tangible enough when it comes to important or political topics to deserve fines. The harm coming from not explicitly saying your rules. We protect a consumer from tobacco by forcing them to tell the truth about the product. THe same goes for tech. I'm sure some will say well these kind of lies aren't that bad, but they are, these are peoples lives and for many their source of income and to get treated differently on a whim tricks the content creators (essentially employees) as well as the users.
cameldrv 3y ago
There is tons of precedent for something like this. It's called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric, water, sewer, and trash utilities, internet service providers, etc. The basic idea is that if a carrier is at least a quasi-monopoly, they have to provide service to anyone unless they have a "good reason." Of course what these reasons might be will vary depending on the business, but would generally not include being accused of a crime. The electric company is not allowed to cut off your power if you are accused (or even convicted) of sexual assault, as long as you pay your bill on time and don't vandalize their equipment etc.
- coldpie 3y ago
  No matter how much you want it to be, YouTube is not a utility. Antitrust law is the right remedy here. Solve this through market competition by breaking up the big companies, not speech stifling regulations.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  All of the entities you mentioned exclusive of internet platforms have in common that they transport goods or passengers for a fee and are open to the public. Internet platforms are not common carriers despite how badly some want to thwart private property rights.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
    Telephone services and internet services in some states are considered common carriers (net neutrality). In the case of an oligopoly like the streaming video market, it makes sense to force large players to make their platforms available on a non-discriminatory basis. I agree that breaking up YouTube would also solve the problem though.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Right, because telcos and isps carry passengers or goods for a fee and they are open to the public. That’s why they are common carriers. Where you miss the mark is that it does not, in fact, make any sense whatsoever and indeed would be illegal to commandeer someone’s computer and force it to do things the owner does not want it to do. This is quite foundational to our private property regime.
pauldenton 3y ago
Have you ever had your phone call interrupted because the phone company didn't like what you were talking about? Have you ever had your TV get disabled because your cable company didn't like the content you were watching? 140 years ago in the age of telegram, I suspect they weren't censoring messages they didn't like either.
- jayrot 3y ago
  This is such a disingenuous argument, it's painful. Did someone's internet connection get disabled?
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/09/archives/nixon-critics-complain-of-rejected-telegrams.html https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/09/archives/nixon-critics-co... I was able to read at least part of the article without a subscription. Folks wanted to send Nixon some pointed complaints (go figure, who could have imagined) and telegraph operators weren’t letting them. Seems telegraph companies left matters of decency up to the discretion of the operator, at least by 1970 (and I bet you’d get a lot of “you may take your business elsewhere” for various sorts of messages you tried to send, before that, to the point that much speech was de-facto banned)

waffleiron 3y ago

> If Google does not want to do this, perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up. If the people or the state want google to do this the should make a law to require it to do so. If they don’t comply then, please break them up, sue them, fine them.

noslenwerdna 3y ago
That seems to be what the person you're responding to is proposing. I think they realize this is not currently the law...