4 ms·

They’re pretty analogous to broadcast content networks. They license and produce content and convey it to customers. We certainly do impose certain responsibil

by 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...
      - krapp 3y ago
        Not in the sense that epgui it using it. They don't want Youtube to simply improve their accessibility and abide by nondiscrimination laws, they want it nationalized and regulated as a utility because of its popularity. Which I'm reasonably confident (despite not being a lawyer) is not a thing in the US. At least not yet.
        epgui 3y ago
        I can tell you that's not exactly what I want.
dylan604 3y ago
No, YT does not produce content. That's a very important distinguishing part of their existence. They cannot be held responsible for the content.
- epgui 3y ago
  You are correct but that's a different conversation (and within the current discussion, a detail).
- paulmd 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_Premium_original_programming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_Premium_orig... Also I said “and license” which is effectively all the third party content. Syndication is one of the oldest network models.
  - epgui 3y ago
    TIL!

by paulmd 3y ago

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...
    - krapp 3y ago
      Not in the sense that epgui it using it. They don't want Youtube to simply improve their accessibility and abide by nondiscrimination laws, they want it nationalized and regulated as a utility because of its popularity. Which I'm reasonably confident (despite not being a lawyer) is not a thing in the US. At least not yet.
      - epgui 3y ago
        I can tell you that's not exactly what I want.

dylan604 3y ago

No, YT does not produce content. That's a very important distinguishing part of their existence. They cannot be held responsible for the content.

epgui 3y ago
You are correct but that's a different conversation (and within the current discussion, a detail).
paulmd 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_Premium_original_programming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_Premium_orig... Also I said “and license” which is effectively all the third party content. Syndication is one of the oldest network models.
- epgui 3y ago
  TIL!