Would you agree with regulation like these suggestions to enable decentralized content hosting:
>Preventing ISPs from blocking port 80, requiring symmetric speeds, so that people can host their own shit - then also a law that requires a court order for self-hosted content to be taken down. >Advertisers should not be allowed to engage in a conspiracy against the public by threatening to remove their ads if a targeted person is not removed. It should be considered anti-competitive. >DNS hosts should not be allowed to ban any records >Caching solutions like cloudflare should not be allowed to make content decisions. >Any site that makes fraudulent claims like being pro-free speech or making claims that they're an "open platform" while they continually ban people for their content should be prosecuted and/or fined for false or misleading advertising. >A company's unpaid community moderators should probably be reclassified as employees so they can expose the company to liability, be named and be fired.
1. Asymmetrical speeds are a function of the hardware. Also blocking self-hosting prevents the home-tier from being abused. Your internet is priced based on the assumption that you're only going to use ~1-2% of it. You're not going to get these 99.5% of users to agree to be grouped with the 0.5% who want to use 100% of theirs and thus subsidize their internet. You can get a business account and pay your own way.
2. >Ordering people to pay others against their will. You're going to need a Constitutional Amendment overturning the First Amendment first. Freedom of association means freedom to not associate. I can set my own rules on what I do with my own money. If I'm not going to associate with you because you're hosting some alt-right moron, that's my right, and my picking someone else is literally the definition of "competitive".
Connor Garcia
I agree on 1, that is hairy.
On 2 though, it's different because of the monopoly aspect. Youtube's policy is to completely demonetize a user if a video violates their nebulous policy. This gives advertisers the power to demonetize any video - much more than simply dissociate with it. Meanwhile there is no other platform that offers nearly the growth capacity of youtube. I mean what are you gonna do, switch to Vimeo? They have like 1% or less of the market. statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of-leading-internet-video-portals/
Bentley Roberts
You do not have a right to use Youtube's service. Their having a good service doesn't mean "competition" requires them to let you use it. >New car dealerships pay millions to be on main thoroughfares >I want to sell my used car >"THOSE DEALERS HAVE TO LET ME USE THEIR LOT TO ADVERTISE MY CAR BECAUSE I CAN'T COMPETE IF I PUT IT IN MY YARD!" That's not how it works.
Juan Wilson
It is essentially open to all internet users. Comparing to a used car lot on a street is extremely fallacious. A used car lot might have .1% of the market share while youtube has 95%.
The courts ruled against companies in a similar case. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama >The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
Also, Rockefeller had a similar market share to google and got trust busted.
>Preventing ISPs from blocking port 80, requiring symmetric speeds, so that people can host their own shit - then also a law that requires a court order for self-hosted content to be taken down. good >DNS hosts should not be allowed to ban any records good >Caching solutions like cloudflare should not be allowed to make content decisions. only if they're so big, the Internet becomes dependent on them. So yeah, something like cloudflare
>Any site that makes fraudulent claims like being pro-free speech or making claims that they're an "open platform" while they continually ban people for their content should be prosecuted and/or fined for false or misleading advertising. no, this is retarded. private owned websites are private. >A company's unpaid community moderators should probably be reclassified as employees so they can expose the company to liability, be named and be fired. What do you mean by "moderator"? Are you saying as in a "forum moderator" If that's the case, then it's an horrible idea. Forums are not companies most of the time. They can't be fired because it's not a job, they don't get paid for it except in very rare cases and it's essentially a hobby.
>Advertisers should not be allowed to engage in a conspiracy against the public by threatening to remove their ads if a targeted person is not removed. It should be considered anti-competitive. Need to word it clearer, no idea what you mean
why do I smell Jow Forums from this thread I probably shouldn't be replying
Nicholas Barnes
You are not a citizen of "Youtube-land" and you have no right to their services. This is no different than saying the New York Times needs to run your stories in their paper. You are not paying for the paper, the ink, or the delivery, and their simply having a large subscriber base doesn't mean they're violating YOUR freedom of speech. You can speak as you want, just not using their services.
Dominic Rogers
The oil price dropped by 90% under the Standard Oil monopoly, and began to rise shortly after it was broken up.
Isaiah Richardson
>only if they're so big Yeah I should have stated this. These rules should apply when they have over 50% or so market share, not to anyone else. Even 70 or 80% would be acceptable to apply the rules.
>What do you mean by "moderator"? I am hesitant about the idea myself and it is from another user. The problem is that moderators are expected to enforce company policies. The example user used >It's like a customer going in to order a burger at a restaurant and while he's sitting down enjoying his meal the restaurant's manager comes out, hands you a bucket, mop, cleaning products and says, "another customer just shit on the floor, go clean it up" - and if you refuse, he takes your meal away. Are you being ordered to act in the capacity of an unpaid employee without any kind of employment contract? Sounds like it to me.
The constitution grants the federal government even more leniency in guaranteeing free speech on the internet, since virtually all internet traffic crosses over state lines and thus falls under the interstate commerce clause, which has been interpreted to be extremely broad already.
ISPs have been at this forever. Of course you can get around this but the issue is normies who don't like alternate ports. ISPs can easily disable all incoming connections as well.
Liam Wood
Broadcasters used the airwaves which are owned by the US government. Cable TV was immune to FCC standards. Guess what the internet uses?
Camden Rivera
You have no right to be paid for your opinion. Watch:
Give me all your money. I'm posting my opinion right now, and if you don't give me all of your money you're censoring me by discouraging me from posting next week to get my grubby little hands on your next paycheck too. You must pay me everything you earn to encourage my posting each week.
How do you think it's going to go over if I call 911 right now and try to have you arrested for not paying me?
Isaac Parker
Internet uses interstate communication, which affects commerce (for example product reviews on amazon).
Curious what you mean about cable tv - though I think more recent precedents would override anything you say.
John Taylor
It's a tricky situation and if you know of better solutions let me know.
Right now if you want an idea to get viral, you go on youtube or twitter or facebook, all essentially the same companies. Go elsewhere and you won't get any traction. This mega silicon valley/SF company can stifle any opinion. They can remove you from the internet within the hour - like they did with Nasim.
It's a new landscape and new solutions are needed.
You smell Jow Forums from this thread because the recommendations of the OP would make it harder for the internet to be censored, which is an inherently political act as much as a technological one.
Lincoln Sullivan
Which doesn't mean you have the right to use someone else's property on the other end.
>Amazon uses the internet so I should be able to store my stuff in their warehouses! Because the internet!
Carson Nguyen
You have no right to spam.
Noah Gonzalez
>>Advertisers should not be allowed to engage in a conspiracy against the public by threatening to remove their ads if a targeted person is not removed. It should be considered anti-competitive. This is incredibly stupid. You do not have a right to make money on someone elses website. If advertisers don't want their product associated with [videos that talk about a certain demographic/ideology] then they are free to do so.
>>Any site that makes fraudulent claims like being pro-free speech or making claims that they're an "open platform" while they continually ban people for their content should be prosecuted and/or fined for false or misleading advertising. ... >>A company's unpaid community moderators should probably be reclassified as employees so they can expose the company to liability, be named and be fired. ok i see you are actually retarded.
>Right now if you want an idea to get viral you go on youtube or twitter or facebook, all essentially the same companies. Go elsewhere and you won't get any traction. It is not a companies responsibility to host a platform that should make your product go viral. They are under no obligation because you are NOT paying them for ANYTHING. inb4 i'm bringing in the users.
Caleb Butler
It's tricky. Youtube stores a shitload of videos and has no economic reason not to host a very small number of videos that don't agree with their politics. They have entered into informal agreements not to host certain content.
It would only apply to major players like youtube.
Jack Sullivan
The recommendations of the OP require a centralised enforcer of said regulations, making it trivial for the internet to be censored
Josiah Nelson
>>Preventing ISPs from blocking port 80, requiring symmetric speeds, so that people can host their own shit - then also a law that requires a court order for self-hosted content to be taken down. Do you wanna get nothing but spam?
Jaxon Fisher
>2. >Ordering people to pay others against their will. >You're going to need a Constitutional Amendment overturning the First Amendment first. Freedom of association means freedom to not associate. lol the courts don't give a shit about your freedom to not associate, they arrest people for not baking cakes for homos.
Jackson Cruz
This is the problem with you alt-righters -- you only think rights apply to you. Taking away people's rights is dangerous because when you take away others' rights you take away the only reason anyone cares about yours. The state being able to tell Youtube who it must associate with means the state can tell you who you must associate with.
Robert Gonzalez
> If advertisers don't want their product associated with [videos that talk about a certain demographic/ideology] then they are free to do so. This isn't their policy though. They have one single policy that applies to all video makers. If they had a more advanced algorithm which dissociated certain advertisers with certain video makers, this wouldn't be a problem. However, Youtube decided to get very political, demonetizing entirely certain users, pic related.
Not allowing public shops to discriminate against protected classes is not the same as requiring you to allow people to set up their own shop on your premises.
Justin Ramirez
So don't use Youtube.
Parker Nguyen
this desu
anyone trying to deny that monopolists shouldn't be beholden to constitutional laws is a traitor to what the constitution itself stands for, and an apologist to crony capitalist companies abusing their market position to change politics
I think the only reason retards defend youtube's actions is because it's targeting conservatives. If it were flipped around and youtube were censoring the left, they'd be screaming bloody murder over it
Carter Rogers
How big must a company get until you force them to host your videos of you saying "controversial opinions"? Who will determine that? Do you need to make a certain amount of money or have a certain amount of market share or maybe it's just youtube? If those videos start costing youtube money are they still required to host them? How would dmca requests be handled or other unwanted videos(things that belong in liveleak)? These are just a couple of basic questions that you need to ask and they have complicated answer. You hate youtube for some reason and want to see them fail but that doesnt excuse you from thinking critically about your so called solution.
Thomas Taylor
This would specifically apply to monopolistic providers like youtube. It would only help the people.
"Alt righter"? I actually worked in this silicon valley shit. It doesn't take a political persuasion to see the problem, but it helps to have tech knowledge to btfo these anti-free speech shills.
Nathaniel Lopez
>you don't get rights because you're a fucking straight white male
Youtube isn't a monopoly. Their product is fucking free. They have no power whatsoever to shut down a competing product.
Colton Jackson
*actually, I take that back. They do have market position, so if they said, "Advertisers, it's either us or (((competing product)))" then that would be monopolistic behavior. Are they doing this? No.
Elijah Brooks
70% conservatively seems reasonable. Youtube has more than that when you disclude non competitors like Netflix.
You're ignoring the actual threats to their business model: FB, Twitch, Patreon. YT absolutely wants to compete with Netflix, they're just garbage at it (YT Red)
Ethan Russell
I'm ignoring? You're ignoring the fact that they provably control a virtual monopoly on the usermade video industry. I don't give a fuck about youtube red and that crap, much like anyone else with a brain.
Blake Long
>Government regulates internet companies to force them to keep their services on the internet free (as in freedom), open, accountable, and uncensored >This somehow makes the internet less free, open, accountable, and uncensored
Almond status: activated
Hudson Collins
Awesome now answer the other questions and then we can finally start having a discussion. Also why not 60% or 80% where did that number come from? What are the possible consequences if the percentage is too small or too high?
John Clark
>violence-monopolist enforces arbitrary criteria on associations >this somehow makes the internet free, open, accountable, and uncensored
Juan Bailey
>control a virtual monopoly on the usermade video industry Yet you posted a graph that ignores the largest user made video watching platforms (FB, IG, Snap) behind YT
>I don't give a fuck about youtube red and that crap, much like anyone else with a brain. So why are you comparing YT vs. Hulu and Netflix?
Joseph Nguyen
I would say 70% market share is reasonable, but the exact percent doesn't matter and would be subject to interpretation. The purpose is to enforce the constitution on the monopolies, which seek to become pseudo governments themselves.
FB is not a serious competitors. IG only allows 1 minute videos.
Neither platforms are places you simply browse videos. Youtube is simply the best at it, so I challenge you to bring up a viable competitor (lol). There is dailymotion, liveleak and vimeo, but none of those hold a candle to youtube.
Christian Perry
YouTube's doesn't sell videos, they sell video ads. FB and IG are killing YT on both brand and performance ads.
>There is dailymotion, liveleak and vimeo, but none of those hold a candle to youtube. You don't really understand the industry do you? YT isn't worried about cut-rate YT knockoffs, they're worried about FB's continued growth / expansions into revshare or the deals Twitch is signing with YouTubers.
YT's replacement isn't going to be "YT but shittier", it'll be a better model to start that organically expands into VOD.
Jeremiah Howard
Simply being the best doesn't make antitrust laws kick in. You have to abuse your position to try to stifle competition from cropping up. So tell me, what would Youtube do to you if you started your own video hosting service? Note that simply being better than your service and so nobody visits yours is not "anti-competitive", it is the very definition of competition and they're simply winning by doing it better.
- Have they engaged in practices which would indicate they would threaten their advertisers if they also ran ads on your platform? - Have they engaged in practices would indicate they would threaten to pull their business from any hosts which hosted your platform?
Tell me, what has Youtube ever done against another website except be better? If you have no answer then they're not a monopoly.
Jaxon Butler
Let's put all our cards on the table here.
If you agree politically with the kinds of censorship done by internet companies run by wealthy globalists, this thread is a fine example of the kinds of rainbow-fart justifications you can conjure up to yourselves and to others for these companies to continue attacking your political opponents.
>Oh hey big guy, private companies don't have to serve you >Hey stud, they aren't real monopolies >Bro, I'm telling you, just host your own email >If you don't like it, just make your own internet, champ
Just be honest. You agree with internet censorship of your political opponents, you like it, and you want it to continue for as long as possible.
>we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel
>Just be honest. You agree with internet censorship of your political opponents, you like it, and you want it to continue for as long as possible. Yes but I want the government to take the role of internet censor in order to promote national interests. But if I can't get that then I'll settle for corporate overlords.
Tyler Bailey
What is Youtube's service? It serves up webpages for entertainment. Does Youtube have a monopoly on this? No.
Jacob Scott
This.
People do not understand that the reason your ISP typically prevents you from hosting websites or mail servers is for every legitimate service being hosted you'd have 100 illegitimate ones. When things are centralized, IE a data center it's easy to audit servers and shut down the spam. Not so easy when it's millions of home computers, smartphones, IoT shit, etc across the world.
Cameron Hernandez
Could you give some example of FB competing with YT while simultaneously having less censorship?
Cameron Cruz
>Hand defined the relevant market narrowly N A R R O W L Y boys. "Web pages for entertainment" is not a narrowly defined market
Julian Barnes
lolbergs are indeed a major problem. They lost yet they stick to it. It is a mathematical fact, peer hosted content will never be competitive simply because it must go through the extra hop.
Mason Smith
Competition plenty, but why would they censor less? No one wants to advertise on your right wing nutjob videos. You're not entitled to advertiser funded video hosting. Start a charity if you want to fix that since there's no way "NutjobTube" is ever going to turn a profit.
Carson Bell
That is narrow since they pop up on your screen as the same. We're not widening it to outlets outside your computer monitor.
James Lee
I completely disagree with everything. Why the fuck should advertisers have to deal with your retarded "muh1488_warneck92" and his dumb shit? They're advertisers, *they don't give a flying fuck about your stupid fucking internet-drama*.
>>Oh hey big guy, private companies don't have to serve you they dont. maybe you think that you are entitled to making yt videos in order to make a living (lol) instead of just getting a real job. living without google products, facebook and amazon is actually very easy. >>Hey stud, they aren't real monopolies not qualified to speak on this >>Bro, I'm telling you, just host your own email yeah its pretty easy to do so. or use something foss. >>If you don't like it, just make your own internet, champ no need to build a new internet just make the one we have better. i2p, tor, zeronet etc. the more people that use it the better it gets. be the change you want to see in the world. but i understand if you want to support your favorite republican youtuber.
>Just be honest. You agree with internet censorship of your political opponents, you like it, and you want it to continue for as long as possible. so instead of admitting your ideas aren't practical you think that everyone else is just a liberal shill. fucking pathetic. all you fags do is complain. >inb4 thats what the libruls do too
Kayden Ramirez
"Narrowly" in US v. Alcoa was as narrow as specific grades of aluminum. That's a bit more narrow than "web pages for entertainment" I'd say.
Dylan Campbell
>No one wants to advertise on your right wing nutjob videos What about water filters?
Generally though, you sound like an idiot. There are always advertisers. There is no reason to completely limit a content producer from this.
>There are always advertisers. High spend advertisers are insanely fickle. You can always run low-CPM "hot singles in your area" ads, but good luck paying for HD video hosting off those pennies.
Oliver Smith
It's moot since you are not Youtube's customer. You're the product. Youtube's customers are its ad buyers, and Youtube does not have a monopoly on buying ads.
Andrew Ross
Good job at being economically retarded. These "demonetized" videos have a forced $0 price for ads, an impossibility. If YT allowed a fair market there would always be advertisers.
I agree with that. Even if you cut down to digital video ads I still think there's competition
Brandon Hall
>These "demonetized" videos have a forced $0 price for ads, an impossibility. >$0 price for ads And you think he's economically retarded...
>If YT allowed a fair market there would always be advertisers. You realize advertisers can still run ads on these videos? None of the high spend advertisers *want* to though.
Lucas Johnson
Actually the exact percent does matter and should not just be an arbitrary number pulled out of your ass. There are billions of dollars at stake and thousands of jobs but you probably dont care about those as long as youtube loses money. You may not know this but google can use the same infrastructure that they use for youtube videos and just segment their population. suppose they are 80% of the market and the cap is at 70%. if gamers make up 10% of the youtube traffic they can literally create a new company for only gamers and they will have met the requirements and nothing will have changed. The monopoly is "broken" but its strange that no new competitors have entered the market. They could also rent out the infrastructure to new companies that share their view points politically.
Stop screaming for regulation and actually think about what you are proposing. There is no point in passing a law just to pass it. Passing bad regulations is objectively worse than passing no regulations. The regulations may work for physical stores but a monkey with a keyboard can create a functioning website very quickly.
>99 percent of those affected were making less than $100 per year in the last year Wow YT really killed their booming business there.
Hmm, I wonder why they made this change was it because (A) they are an evil cabal who hate small creators or (B) "A big part of that effort will be strengthening our requirements for monetization so spammers, impersonators, and other bad actors can’t hurt our ecosystem"
If advertisers keep seeing their ads run against ISIS propaganda they're going to leave the platform entirely, then no one gets any money. It sucks, but until the classifiers are perfect they need to limit the channels which can be monetized.
Jack King
>Youtube is attempting to squelch that out and favor larger content producers. whats wrong with favoring large content producers though? Sure it sucks for the little guys but thats not youtube's problem the little guys dont matter. why does the opinion of a mentally ill person matter, or is that a threat for more violence to come if youtube does not revert their policies?
Dominic Long
>requiring symmetric speed can you please not be this ignorant on a technology board
Luke Thomas
>Nasim posted this, 10 cents for 300k views. "Why doesn't anyone want to advertise on someone's schizophrenic rants"?
>It's impossible - there is always a market. Might be really cheap but it's there. Correct, about $0.10 per 300k views it sounds like. If you'd pay more go start running ads now.
Ethan Green
it sucks for the consumer if finding interesting stuff becomes a problem due to overly loud voices favoring a very specific way of being or thinking.
Aaron White
ISPs could do it if they weren’t so heavily oversubscribed. Maybe they should have used that federal tax payer money for infrasctructure upgrades instead of giving raises to executives.
Cooper Carter
The exact percent does NOT matter at present, since we are comparing 90% vs a lot of 0.1%'s.
>Stop screaming for regulation and actually think about what you are proposing. There is no point in passing a law just to pass it That is the whole point of discussing it, figure out what has legs or is stupid. Some ideas I posted are stupid. I have been compiling ideas and want to come up with a solid proposal.
Josiah Price
>Why didn't they use the free money the way we wanted >:( What a mystery. Maybe you should try having an intelligent government that doesn't give out money and cross their fingers it'll work.
Luke Kelly
You're asking us to arbitrarily remove someone else's property rights because you believe you should win. Self-absorption is not a particularly good foundation for a legal system because the ruling class just uses it to fuck the citizens.
Nathan Ramirez
Okay you corporate fuck.
The issue is their monopoly, they can choose winners and losers with significant input from NGOs like SPLC, "trusted flaggers".
Connor Martin
They have no monopoly on selling ads. Feel free to start a webpage and start selling ads.
Connor Scott
>the eternal lolberg
Joshua King
...
Justin Parker
>ISPs could do it if they weren’t so heavily oversubscribed. that isn't remotely related to why speeds are symmetrical speeds are asymmetrical because it allows them to provision you higher download speed
they are not deliberately capping your upload low, they are balancing your bandwidth toward reception rather than equal but lesser signal asymmetric exists because it's what the consumer actually uses, buy a business line if you want symmetric
Samuel Ross
>You're asking us to arbitrarily remove someone else's property rights because you believe you should win. Communist self-assurance in a sentence.
Tyler Walker
Or you could just let businesses offer you sn optional service and not purchase it if it's not agreeable to you.
Mason Wright
if people want to disable their adblock for that one guy with 5k subs so he gets ad revenue, it should be their decision. that's how markets work
Cooper Phillips
Yup. It's amazing how fast the alt-right has latched onto the self-serving portions of far left ideology.
Christian Bailey
The advertisers don't want to advertise on his channel. That's how markets work.
Julian Taylor
i would but it wont happen, so (((they))) need to be scared into doing it One way of doing it is NOT LIKE NASIM the useless vegan whore The correct way is to storm CHARLIE HEBDO style the offices and homes of the companies doing the censoring and killing everyone after extensive torture and mutilation on HD video for all to see
Brody Lopez
thats yt's problem though. they will just lose market share if the move is as detrimental as you think or they will be forced to change their business practices.
honestly the thread start off badly and i feel like the quality will only continue to go down. its only a matter of time before someone starts talking about IQ or dumping other Jow Forums related content. i will say that the game has changed drastically and almost every single politician and most people in general have no clue how to handle anything that happens in the internet. They are vastly under qualified in making decisions about the internet. Things that normal people think is simple to do may be impossible/impractical in practice. The lines between cant do something and wont do something are incredibly blurred. You cannot fix yt or facebook with people that do not understand it.
>That is the whole point of discussing it, figure out what has legs or is stupid. Some ideas I posted are stupid. If you are the OP then every idea is stupid. Also try to have some empathy. If yt leaned right would you be ok with any of the ideas you are proposing even the ones that you think are "actually good" because your preferred party wont be in power forever. If something is passed to benefit side A then in 4-8 years it will be used to benefit side B.
Leo Rivera
>that's yt's problem Yeah, i pretty much completely agree (and semi-hence i suppose that's the great thing about YouTube tracking your interests, they have more datapoints than "loads of people like this").
And btw tax the shit out of YouTube and spend it all on schools and food desu, fuck this needless discussion of fairness in a game of bottom-feeding dollar-munchin fat kulak good old porkies; kill them all, install gentoo, this thread is a society
>If something is passed to benefit side A then in 4-8 years it will be used to benefit side B. Yup. There's more of an argument that Stormfront and Gab should be forced to pay Shareblue than for Youtube to be forced to promote alt-right content, since Youtube has monetized conservative channels while Stormfront doesn't give any of their sweet donation money to progressives.
David Jones
All the more reason to force them. Since they don't care anyways, they'd have to pay up.
