6 ms·

At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? Edit: it's a legitimate question. You can argue that nobody "needs" YouTube but the

by epgui 3y ago

At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? Edit: it's a legitimate question. You can argue that nobody "needs" YouTube but the fact of the matter is that if you can't access YouTube, you can't ramp up on academic topics as easily as your colleagues, so you are at a disadvantage. It's a material effect. The question is "at what point" does this access become worth protecting.

Analemma_ 3y ago
If you're going to argue that YouTube is a public good, then the government should be obliged to pay Google for its upkeep costs, or pay them some kind of fair market price to nationalize it completely. Which Google might be OK with, but you should be honest about what you're really proposing here.
- epgui 3y ago
  Yes, I am talking about some form or other of exactly this, and I am not trying to hide it. I think big social networks have immense importance in society (much like many other utilities), and I think it's worth raising the question, and seriously considering, no matter what answer you land on.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    Who pays the creators and how much?
    - epgui 3y ago
      I don't have a business plan, and I haven't drafted any laws. But you can easily imagine a model in which government subsidies are granted at arms length to offset revenue lost by the protection of such a hypothetical right as the one I'm proposing. It doesn't have to be as alarming as many seem to think either. It's not so different from the current relationship between governments and utilities, NGOs, universities, telephone companies, power companies, etc.
dylan604 3y ago
You're not prevented from viewing YT, as long as you do it within the limits they have set forth. I'm anti-ads as much as the next person, but I at least am willing to admit they can put whatever stipulations they want as it is their site. Creators don't have to publish on YT, but they choose to. Just because nobody else offers a competing platform is not YT's problem. Block all the ads you want, but this argument that rights are being trampled is just nonsense
- epgui 3y ago
  > is not YT's problem I agree... But shouldn't it be society's problem? That's what I'm saying: I am not talking about what the current law is. I am proposing that perhaps (just perhaps) there ought to be different laws. > this argument that rights are being trampled That is not the argument, as I hope I have clarified above.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 3y ago
    You aren't simply talking about different laws, but a fundamental restructuring of the relationship between government and private enterprise, private property, freedom of speech and association. You seem to want to grant the government carte blanche to seize, nationalize and regulate social media because you consider it too convenient to do without. That's not something free societies do, that's what autocracies and banana republics do. Let the government create its own taxpayer funded social media platforms if it's so important, maybe even require academia to publish to those platforms. That would also be a solution.
    - epgui 3y ago
      If access to certain kinds of massive social networks is deemed sufficiently important to protect, hypothetically, then there would likely be government subsidies to offset any lost revenue. For every objection one could raise, there's about a million different legal and administrative knobs you can turn to fine-tune the relationship between public and private, government and corporate. > That's not something free societies do Oh yes it is. The government in most (all?) developed countries has special (often at arms length) relationships with utilities, research institutions, nonprofits and NGOs, universities, etc. > You seem to want to grant the government carte blanche to seize, nationalize and regulate social media This is probably the most extreme interpretation possible of what I'm saying. Do you really think it's what I'm suggesting? I'm not claiming to have all the answers, merely raising a question I think is worth seriously considering.
beej71 3y ago
> At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? It is a legitimate question, but we're nowhere near that point. If YT vanished from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the country would continue without any problem.
- epgui 3y ago
  > If YT vanished from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the country would continue without any problem. This is interesting, because it's probably true (but what would the economic impact be? I'd wager it could be rather large)... And yet the cost of staying out of a massive social network is enormous for a single individual, relative to their peers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gilmore606 3y ago
Damn, I've never watched a video to learn academic topics in my entire life, I must have actual brain damage. I just read books like some moron.
- epgui 3y ago
  Books are great, but if you haven't noticed, they are different than content in video form. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages, so they are not perfectly fungible.
  - gilmore606 3y ago
    But what you said was that without Youtube you'd be at a disadvantage in "academic topics". That seems ridiculous on its face, unless you are somehow unable to read. My point is that I am in no way at such a disadvantage, nor would you be. You keep implying all over this thread that ad-free access to funny Youtube videos is something like a human right. This is absurd. Your logic would result in my tax dollars paying for your funny Youtube videos. I don't want that.
    - epgui 3y ago
      I think your comments border on the "appeal to ridicule". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      > But what you said was that without Youtube you'd be at a disadvantage in "academic topics". That seems ridiculous on its face, unless you are somehow unable to read. My point is that I am in no way at such a disadvantage, nor would you be. I too am from the generation that prefers to read. But my kids prefer videos, and it's not for want of me working with them to read more, they simply don't like reading and they pick up a fairly incredible amount of stuff from watching videos. Unfortunately their gullible little brains are also wide open to advertiser. > You keep implying all over this thread that ad-free access to funny Youtube videos is something like a human right. This is absurd. Your logic would result in my tax dollars paying for your funny Youtube videos. I don't want that. You are not arguing in a serious manner. Funny Youtube videos are your strawman and nobody wants to use your tax dollars to support funny youtube videos. But there is plenty of higher quality content on youtube and google shouldn't be the gatekeeper to that content over the heads of the creators and the consumers alike. Economies of scale and network effects translate into users no longer having a free choice in this. And that is precisely where regulation kicks in.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
We're a while aways from YouTube being considered a protected public good in the way, say Internet access kind of is. Should it be? Probably, yes. No reason there can't be oversight of the industry the way there is with TV stations and radio. Should that oversight extend to letting people deny ads in their homes? That's a trickier question.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  When did the rights of advertisers trump the rights of individuals? Why should I be forced to consume advertising? This is my brain, my eyeballs, I and only I decide what goes in. It's like forcing someone to breathe poison gas just because they also need your oxygen and you happen to be the only oxygen provider in town.
  - epgui 3y ago
    Pardon me for the tangent, but I suspect that at least part of the issue is that people tend to think they are not affected by "bad information" (eg.: propaganda, mis/dis-information, information-noise...). I think most people would probably intuitively reject the idea that they could be influenced by their information consumption. So I don't think it's that surprising that the full costs of advertising are not taken very seriously; it's much easier to see the commercial motivation for advertising.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      And that is exactly why I don't want advertising in my life. I don't think I'm smart enough to outwit an army of psychologists, marketeers and other vermin that have institutional knowledge dating back decades in order to know exactly what buttons to press in me to make me behave in a certain way. It's a personal hygiene thing.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    It's not about forcing you to consume advertising directly. At the moment, the thinking is you choose to do so as a consequence of choosing to view something else, e.g. a TV show or a YouTube video. It's the cost of doing so, and the cost is generally known about upfront. The question then is, should you have the right to still consume a free optional service and not be forced to view those ads?
kazinator 3y ago
> At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? When the government buys it and operates it with your tax dollars.
modeless 3y ago
You can refuse ad exposure on YouTube, it just costs money. Phone service and internet service cost money too, and government services use them extensively, yet nobody suggests that phone and internet service providers be obligated to provide service to anyone for free at their own cost. The government does subsidize access in some cases, so the equivalent suggestion would be government subsidized YouTube Premium for those who can't afford it. But I think you'll have trouble convincing people that's a worthwhile use of government money vs. just letting people watch a few ads.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  I hate ads. So I just paid for premium. I don't get why people expect to be able to reject ads and reject paying for the service at the same time. Obviously that was always unsustainable.
  - unconed 3y ago
    I don't want to give money to people who hate me, censor me and who spend the money on others to do the same.

by epgui 3y ago

Analemma_ 3y ago

If you're going to argue that YouTube is a public good, then the government should be obliged to pay Google for its upkeep costs, or pay them some kind of fair market price to nationalize it completely. Which Google might be OK with, but you should be honest about what you're really proposing here.

epgui 3y ago
Yes, I am talking about some form or other of exactly this, and I am not trying to hide it. I think big social networks have immense importance in society (much like many other utilities), and I think it's worth raising the question, and seriously considering, no matter what answer you land on.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  Who pays the creators and how much?
  - epgui 3y ago
    I don't have a business plan, and I haven't drafted any laws. But you can easily imagine a model in which government subsidies are granted at arms length to offset revenue lost by the protection of such a hypothetical right as the one I'm proposing. It doesn't have to be as alarming as many seem to think either. It's not so different from the current relationship between governments and utilities, NGOs, universities, telephone companies, power companies, etc.

dylan604 3y ago

You're not prevented from viewing YT, as long as you do it within the limits they have set forth. I'm anti-ads as much as the next person, but I at least am willing to admit they can put whatever stipulations they want as it is their site. Creators don't have to publish on YT, but they choose to. Just because nobody else offers a competing platform is not YT's problem. Block all the ads you want, but this argument that rights are being trampled is just nonsense

epgui 3y ago
> is not YT's problem I agree... But shouldn't it be society's problem? That's what I'm saying: I am not talking about what the current law is. I am proposing that perhaps (just perhaps) there ought to be different laws. > this argument that rights are being trampled That is not the argument, as I hope I have clarified above.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 3y ago
  You aren't simply talking about different laws, but a fundamental restructuring of the relationship between government and private enterprise, private property, freedom of speech and association. You seem to want to grant the government carte blanche to seize, nationalize and regulate social media because you consider it too convenient to do without. That's not something free societies do, that's what autocracies and banana republics do. Let the government create its own taxpayer funded social media platforms if it's so important, maybe even require academia to publish to those platforms. That would also be a solution.
  - epgui 3y ago
    If access to certain kinds of massive social networks is deemed sufficiently important to protect, hypothetically, then there would likely be government subsidies to offset any lost revenue. For every objection one could raise, there's about a million different legal and administrative knobs you can turn to fine-tune the relationship between public and private, government and corporate. > That's not something free societies do Oh yes it is. The government in most (all?) developed countries has special (often at arms length) relationships with utilities, research institutions, nonprofits and NGOs, universities, etc. > You seem to want to grant the government carte blanche to seize, nationalize and regulate social media This is probably the most extreme interpretation possible of what I'm saying. Do you really think it's what I'm suggesting? I'm not claiming to have all the answers, merely raising a question I think is worth seriously considering.

beej71 3y ago

> At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? It is a legitimate question, but we're nowhere near that point. If YT vanished from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the country would continue without any problem.

epgui 3y ago
> If YT vanished from the face of the Earth tomorrow, the country would continue without any problem. This is interesting, because it's probably true (but what would the economic impact be? I'd wager it could be rather large)... And yet the cost of staying out of a massive social network is enormous for a single individual, relative to their peers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gilmore606 3y ago

Damn, I've never watched a video to learn academic topics in my entire life, I must have actual brain damage. I just read books like some moron.

epgui 3y ago
Books are great, but if you haven't noticed, they are different than content in video form. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages, so they are not perfectly fungible.
- gilmore606 3y ago
  But what you said was that without Youtube you'd be at a disadvantage in "academic topics". That seems ridiculous on its face, unless you are somehow unable to read. My point is that I am in no way at such a disadvantage, nor would you be. You keep implying all over this thread that ad-free access to funny Youtube videos is something like a human right. This is absurd. Your logic would result in my tax dollars paying for your funny Youtube videos. I don't want that.
  - epgui 3y ago
    I think your comments border on the "appeal to ridicule". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    > But what you said was that without Youtube you'd be at a disadvantage in "academic topics". That seems ridiculous on its face, unless you are somehow unable to read. My point is that I am in no way at such a disadvantage, nor would you be. I too am from the generation that prefers to read. But my kids prefer videos, and it's not for want of me working with them to read more, they simply don't like reading and they pick up a fairly incredible amount of stuff from watching videos. Unfortunately their gullible little brains are also wide open to advertiser. > You keep implying all over this thread that ad-free access to funny Youtube videos is something like a human right. This is absurd. Your logic would result in my tax dollars paying for your funny Youtube videos. I don't want that. You are not arguing in a serious manner. Funny Youtube videos are your strawman and nobody wants to use your tax dollars to support funny youtube videos. But there is plenty of higher quality content on youtube and google shouldn't be the gatekeeper to that content over the heads of the creators and the consumers alike. Economies of scale and network effects translate into users no longer having a free choice in this. And that is precisely where regulation kicks in.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

We're a while aways from YouTube being considered a protected public good in the way, say Internet access kind of is. Should it be? Probably, yes. No reason there can't be oversight of the industry the way there is with TV stations and radio. Should that oversight extend to letting people deny ads in their homes? That's a trickier question.

jacquesm 3y ago
When did the rights of advertisers trump the rights of individuals? Why should I be forced to consume advertising? This is my brain, my eyeballs, I and only I decide what goes in. It's like forcing someone to breathe poison gas just because they also need your oxygen and you happen to be the only oxygen provider in town.
- epgui 3y ago
  Pardon me for the tangent, but I suspect that at least part of the issue is that people tend to think they are not affected by "bad information" (eg.: propaganda, mis/dis-information, information-noise...). I think most people would probably intuitively reject the idea that they could be influenced by their information consumption. So I don't think it's that surprising that the full costs of advertising are not taken very seriously; it's much easier to see the commercial motivation for advertising.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    And that is exactly why I don't want advertising in my life. I don't think I'm smart enough to outwit an army of psychologists, marketeers and other vermin that have institutional knowledge dating back decades in order to know exactly what buttons to press in me to make me behave in a certain way. It's a personal hygiene thing.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  It's not about forcing you to consume advertising directly. At the moment, the thinking is you choose to do so as a consequence of choosing to view something else, e.g. a TV show or a YouTube video. It's the cost of doing so, and the cost is generally known about upfront. The question then is, should you have the right to still consume a free optional service and not be forced to view those ads?

kazinator 3y ago

> At what point does an important or essential service become a public good? When the government buys it and operates it with your tax dollars.

modeless 3y ago

You can refuse ad exposure on YouTube, it just costs money. Phone service and internet service cost money too, and government services use them extensively, yet nobody suggests that phone and internet service providers be obligated to provide service to anyone for free at their own cost. The government does subsidize access in some cases, so the equivalent suggestion would be government subsidized YouTube Premium for those who can't afford it. But I think you'll have trouble convincing people that's a worthwhile use of government money vs. just letting people watch a few ads.

Gigachad 3y ago
I hate ads. So I just paid for premium. I don't get why people expect to be able to reject ads and reject paying for the service at the same time. Obviously that was always unsustainable.
- unconed 3y ago
  I don't want to give money to people who hate me, censor me and who spend the money on others to do the same.