4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >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. Youtube is none of these things, it's private property. The government in free societies tends to respect private property. Especially when that property is a platform for speech. Television and radio being an exception because spectrum is a limited resource, but there is no equivalent to that on the internet. Youtube's dominance is not the end result of their control over infrastructure, we could have a million video platforms on the internet, if we wanted. >This is probably the most extreme interpretation possible of what I'm saying. Do you really think it's what I'm suggesting? I think it's the inevitable result of what you're suggesting. Why stop at Youtube, after all? Aren't Twitter and Facebook also "sufficiently important?" I've seen people suggest any social media platform with over some arbitrary number of users should be automatically nationalized. It's a moving target. And of course, these platforms will be regulated and censored, because that's what government does. Again, I think a better solution would be for governments (or even academic institutions) to create their own platforms. That would be more in the spirit of the internet, rather than centralization and government control.
    - epgui 3y ago
      We continue to be talking about different things. "What is" is different that "what ought to be". I am talking about the latter, but you continue to refer to the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem --- > I think a better solution would be for governments (or even academic institutions) to create their own platforms. This is perfectly compatible with what I was saying. It's a reasonable approach. > rather than centralization and government control The other kinds of approaches I was considering have nothing to do with control in the sense of "government oppression". Much to the contrary. There are many laws and rights that are technically a form of government control but which have the effect of protecting individuals from being oppressed by larger forces. These types of government control are generally very important. (I also worry when government control serves the government's interests more than that of individuals, but that's not really what I'm talking about in this context.)
Gigachad 3y ago
What would be the point of the laws? If ads were illegal then Youtube would just become a paid only platform. How is that any better when you already have the option to pay for ad free?
- epgui 3y ago
  Nobody here, including me, has suggested that ads should be illegal.

by epgui 3y ago

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.
- krapp 3y ago
  >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. Youtube is none of these things, it's private property. The government in free societies tends to respect private property. Especially when that property is a platform for speech. Television and radio being an exception because spectrum is a limited resource, but there is no equivalent to that on the internet. Youtube's dominance is not the end result of their control over infrastructure, we could have a million video platforms on the internet, if we wanted. >This is probably the most extreme interpretation possible of what I'm saying. Do you really think it's what I'm suggesting? I think it's the inevitable result of what you're suggesting. Why stop at Youtube, after all? Aren't Twitter and Facebook also "sufficiently important?" I've seen people suggest any social media platform with over some arbitrary number of users should be automatically nationalized. It's a moving target. And of course, these platforms will be regulated and censored, because that's what government does. Again, I think a better solution would be for governments (or even academic institutions) to create their own platforms. That would be more in the spirit of the internet, rather than centralization and government control.
  - epgui 3y ago
    We continue to be talking about different things. "What is" is different that "what ought to be". I am talking about the latter, but you continue to refer to the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem --- > I think a better solution would be for governments (or even academic institutions) to create their own platforms. This is perfectly compatible with what I was saying. It's a reasonable approach. > rather than centralization and government control The other kinds of approaches I was considering have nothing to do with control in the sense of "government oppression". Much to the contrary. There are many laws and rights that are technically a form of government control but which have the effect of protecting individuals from being oppressed by larger forces. These types of government control are generally very important. (I also worry when government control serves the government's interests more than that of individuals, but that's not really what I'm talking about in this context.)

Gigachad 3y ago

What would be the point of the laws? If ads were illegal then Youtube would just become a paid only platform. How is that any better when you already have the option to pay for ad free?

epgui 3y ago
Nobody here, including me, has suggested that ads should be illegal.