4 ms·

> Users don't have a right to use YT. The question here is not whether they have a right to use it, but whether they should have a right. All rights are invent

by epgui 3y ago

> Users don't have a right to use YT. The question here is not whether they have a right to use it, but whether they should have a right. All rights are invented, created essentially out of thin air, to protect things people care sufficiently about. All rights were at some point not rights.

dylan604 3y ago
I think this conversation is being taken to weird directions. To me, a website is a company's digital version of a brick-n-mortar store. There is an understood and accept concept of the store is the business' property. There is no right for you to enter a store and you can lose your privilege by not behaving yourself. Why we do not afford a website this same concept is lost on me.
- epgui 3y ago
  When you do business with the phone company, you can draw the same analogy. And yet these often/usually have special relationships with governments owing to the critically important infrastructure involved.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    What critical service does YT provide that it should even be considered for being considered a critical anything?
    - epgui 3y ago
      So first, let's consider what I am not talking about. That would be videos of cats, entertainment, etc. Things that could more easily be argued to be important would be stuff like academic content or news content. At this point Youtube is a part of the broader internet infrastructure (as are many other large social networks), and you can make an argument that it's a bit like any other utility (roads, phone lines, fiber op cable, GPS satellites, etc).
      - dylan604 3y ago
        nothing you just offered as critical is critical. government offers schooling. if you wish to seek additional, that is offered in other ways. when i went to school, YT didn't exist. yet, i still sought out additional resources that were available outside of school. this argument carries no weight with me. news content is available in other places. these news sources choose to offer their content on YT because that's where the audience is. if YT were to no longer exist, the news content would still be available elsewhere. again, no weight here either. considering YT part of the infrastructure means to me that you are very confused on what infrastructure is. YT utilizes that infrastructure. if YT didn't exist, it does not mean that the internet wouldn't work. it would not prevent anyone from accessing other resources utilizing the actual infrastructure of the internet. so either, this word has a confused meaning for you, or you're just beyond hypothetical and not realizing it. i realize some people would feel like the internet was broken if social media sites were down, but they'd eventually get over it if they were to never come back
        epgui 3y ago
        I think we disagree about the importance of these things, but that's okay. However... There is plenty of academic literature which explores the concept of social media as infrastructure. I didn't come up with the idea, I only pointed to it. I won't point to any specific document, but there is plenty of related material here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=social+media+infrastructure&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=soci... Or, take a look at the wiki page for "infrastructure" to get a rough sense of how broad the concept really is.
        dylan604 3y ago
        I can provide links that say the earth is flat or that JFK is returning to Dallas or any other topic. Those links don't make it true, or isn't just extremely stretched interpretation of some concept. Are any of the links you provided actual respected resources, or a collection of self published content? I'm unfamiliar with any of the names I saw in the URLs, and I come from a highly skeptical grounding about random links on the internet
    - paulmd 3y ago
      They’re pretty analogous to broadcast content networks. They license and produce content and convey it to customers. We certainly do impose certain responsibilities and duties even on non-public airwaves - for example we require them to distribute emergency content to viewers even if this interrupts the ordinary revenue operation/broadcast schedule (as it usually does). That’s precisely a taking of private property for governmental purposes and public utility.
      - krapp 3y ago
        The argument for allowing the government to regulate broadcast media is that the electromagnetic spectrum it uses is a limited public resource which needs to be curated for the public good. That argument doesn't apply to the internet - no matter how big Youtube gets there is always room for a competitor, we're not going to "run out of internet." I would agree that the network as a whole might comprise a public resource, although I would also disagree vehemently with letting the government regulate speech on it like the FCC, but not individual sites and platforms.
        epgui 3y ago
        Then use a different example, like fiberop cable, power companies, telephone towers, or water streams or parks. I don't think the scarcity is the most important feature, I think it's the "public nature" of the thing. But how do we decide what is of a "public nature"?
        krapp 3y ago
        >I think it's the "public nature" of the thing. But how do we decide what is of a "public nature"? There is no "public nature." Simply allowing the public to use a service doesn't make it public. MacDonald's will let anyone walk in and order food, and it's ubiquitous, but that doesn't make it a public utility.
        paulmd 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the...
    - linuxandrew 3y ago
      > What critical service does YT provide that it should even be considered for being considered a critical anything? Government announcements, instructional videos by governments (e.g. for voting), educational content for children, etc. Governments should really be banned from putting that kind of stuff on a site like YouTube. That aside, the point on criticality is not really a good one, it is important for any sort of cultural content to be widely accessible and not behind walled gardens.

by epgui 3y ago

dylan604 3y ago

I think this conversation is being taken to weird directions. To me, a website is a company's digital version of a brick-n-mortar store. There is an understood and accept concept of the store is the business' property. There is no right for you to enter a store and you can lose your privilege by not behaving yourself. Why we do not afford a website this same concept is lost on me.

epgui 3y ago
When you do business with the phone company, you can draw the same analogy. And yet these often/usually have special relationships with governments owing to the critically important infrastructure involved.
- dylan604 3y ago
  What critical service does YT provide that it should even be considered for being considered a critical anything?
  - epgui 3y ago
    So first, let's consider what I am not talking about. That would be videos of cats, entertainment, etc. Things that could more easily be argued to be important would be stuff like academic content or news content. At this point Youtube is a part of the broader internet infrastructure (as are many other large social networks), and you can make an argument that it's a bit like any other utility (roads, phone lines, fiber op cable, GPS satellites, etc).
    - dylan604 3y ago
      nothing you just offered as critical is critical. government offers schooling. if you wish to seek additional, that is offered in other ways. when i went to school, YT didn't exist. yet, i still sought out additional resources that were available outside of school. this argument carries no weight with me. news content is available in other places. these news sources choose to offer their content on YT because that's where the audience is. if YT were to no longer exist, the news content would still be available elsewhere. again, no weight here either. considering YT part of the infrastructure means to me that you are very confused on what infrastructure is. YT utilizes that infrastructure. if YT didn't exist, it does not mean that the internet wouldn't work. it would not prevent anyone from accessing other resources utilizing the actual infrastructure of the internet. so either, this word has a confused meaning for you, or you're just beyond hypothetical and not realizing it. i realize some people would feel like the internet was broken if social media sites were down, but they'd eventually get over it if they were to never come back
      - epgui 3y ago
        I think we disagree about the importance of these things, but that's okay. However... There is plenty of academic literature which explores the concept of social media as infrastructure. I didn't come up with the idea, I only pointed to it. I won't point to any specific document, but there is plenty of related material here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=social+media+infrastructure&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=soci... Or, take a look at the wiki page for "infrastructure" to get a rough sense of how broad the concept really is.
        dylan604 3y ago
        I can provide links that say the earth is flat or that JFK is returning to Dallas or any other topic. Those links don't make it true, or isn't just extremely stretched interpretation of some concept. Are any of the links you provided actual respected resources, or a collection of self published content? I'm unfamiliar with any of the names I saw in the URLs, and I come from a highly skeptical grounding about random links on the internet
  - paulmd 3y ago
    They’re pretty analogous to broadcast content networks. They license and produce content and convey it to customers. We certainly do impose certain responsibilities and duties even on non-public airwaves - for example we require them to distribute emergency content to viewers even if this interrupts the ordinary revenue operation/broadcast schedule (as it usually does). That’s precisely a taking of private property for governmental purposes and public utility.
    - krapp 3y ago
      The argument for allowing the government to regulate broadcast media is that the electromagnetic spectrum it uses is a limited public resource which needs to be curated for the public good. That argument doesn't apply to the internet - no matter how big Youtube gets there is always room for a competitor, we're not going to "run out of internet." I would agree that the network as a whole might comprise a public resource, although I would also disagree vehemently with letting the government regulate speech on it like the FCC, but not individual sites and platforms.
      - epgui 3y ago
        Then use a different example, like fiberop cable, power companies, telephone towers, or water streams or parks. I don't think the scarcity is the most important feature, I think it's the "public nature" of the thing. But how do we decide what is of a "public nature"?
        krapp 3y ago
        >I think it's the "public nature" of the thing. But how do we decide what is of a "public nature"? There is no "public nature." Simply allowing the public to use a service doesn't make it public. MacDonald's will let anyone walk in and order food, and it's ubiquitous, but that doesn't make it a public utility.
        paulmd 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the...
  - linuxandrew 3y ago
    > What critical service does YT provide that it should even be considered for being considered a critical anything? Government announcements, instructional videos by governments (e.g. for voting), educational content for children, etc. Governments should really be banned from putting that kind of stuff on a site like YouTube. That aside, the point on criticality is not really a good one, it is important for any sort of cultural content to be widely accessible and not behind walled gardens.