Should monopoly laws apply to the internet?

true.
but monopoly regulations arent needed yet, just enforcement of cda and dmca common carrier protections.
as an aside, any website that uses user generated content to maoe a profit , then arbitrarily changes tos to less favorable conditions, could be liable for civil and not criminal suits, where a lover standard is required to show fault

How on earth could you enforce that?

You should use bitchute instead of YouTube.
You should use gab.ai instead of Twitter.
And you should use minds instead of Facebook.

The end. Do it and spread it.

>There are alternatives, though they are discouraged here to discuss.
just like youtube hates criticism and will demonetize anything that would dare say anything against it's practice i can't type 4 + Jow Forums or the others.
I'm not even allowed to say senpai desu or onions

>You should use bitchute instead of YouTube.
no videos
>You should use gab.ai instead of Twitter.
no audience
>And you should use minds instead of Facebook.
no friends

Also considering many major tech companies have either been propped up by tax evasions/breaks or subsidized by OUR TAX DOLLARS, I'd imagine they are not really private corporate entities.

>Also considering many major tech companies have either been propped up by tax evasions/breaks or subsidized by OUR TAX DOLLARS, I'd imagine they are not really private corporate entities.

Millie, please fuck off. You may not understand the difference between public and publicly traded, but the rest of us do.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-08-08 at 10.38.16.png (1152x2088, 1.11M)

Hello Europe

YouTube monopoly is run one website no one could made profit or just begin massive money lost.

Imagine monopoly laws agains app stores.

We need some set of laws that grant additional protection to companies like YouTube (sort of like DMCA safe harbor) if they agree to become control neutral platforms, effectively a type of common carrier.

We need to make it appealing to become one of these protected entities, so they self-certify and it isn't forced by the government.

Kiss my ass commie. If it's propped up by my (and YOUR) taxes then we can and should legislate the piss out of them.

>Millie, please fuck off. You may not understand the difference between public and publicly traded, but the rest of us do.
your ignoring the fact that governments are basically blackmailed into tax breaks, bailouts and subsidization since they companies can just say they're leaving for off shore.

>If it's propped up by my (and YOUR) taxes then we can and should legislate the piss out of them.
Remind me again why we let subsidised cable companies off the hook with regards to regulations then?

By that logic MS also wasn't a monopoly because you don't have to use a computer.

And that's a good thing, taxation and regulations are obviously harmful to business and a hinder to progress.

Name another youtube-like site that's even a fraction as popular.

Being popular doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Coca Cola is by far the most popular sugary fizzy drink producer, but they aren't the only one.

>MS also wasn't a monopoly because you don't have to use a computer.
it's funny that apple came first. Why didn't they ever patent the mouse? Look at all the money they've lot out on.>taxation and regulations are obviously harmful to business and a hinder to progress.
>tax the poor not the rich

>Coca Cola is by far the most popular sugary fizzy drink producer
they were the first sadly so they won't die. Aswell as they have bought more then half the market. Alot of brands if you look at the back say they are owned by the coca-cola company.

>>tax the poor not the rich
I would say tax no one, or keep taxes to a minimal, but just because you are taxing poor people doesn't make it any more right to tax rich people. That's like saying we should throwi white people in the gas chambers in order to make it right for jews that were killed during holocaust.

Being big does not mean being a monopoly either. I will never understand why liberals are so hung up about "big business = bad, small business = good", while at the same time they have no problem massively expanding the already biggest business there is (the government).

Rekt

>That's like saying we should throwi white people in the gas chambers in order to make it right for jews that were killed during holocaust.
i wouldn't mind that ;P
Your right but someone has to pay the tax. the real probably is government is too big and that's true with mostly ever country and that's the real cancer of society. They try to do everything and fail at it so badly.
Like say how they want to regulate everything, like you can't do this and that. All that money wasted when it just takes common decency and humanity to deal with that. Companies want your money, not to kill you. If a company fuck's up we can just lynch them and be done with that. but instead we just take them to court where they get a slap on the wrist.

>"big business = bad, small business = good"
when you consider things like
gawker.com/how-apple-helps-fund-a-bloody-colombian-rebel-army-1066230930
and
cnbc.com/2015/08/10/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets.html
and
alternet.org/story/146579/coca_cola's_role_in_the_assassinations_of_union_leaders_explored_in_powerful_new_documentary
These are the actions of "monopolies" and not to mention these multinational companies earn more profit then some countries GDP it's worrying the amount of power they can wield. they are practically untouchable

> ;P
> Your right but

get out kid

Free speech was written into constitutions around the world at a time before the internet, when discussion and preaching took place government owned streets, squares and town halls. Now it takes place on the internet.

The internet, and by that I mean the big sites and services most people use, has also become more like utilities to most people.

Hate speech laws around the world apply to the internet, so obviously the sanctity of private property and communications isn't something the non-US governments really care about. If free speech is not applicable, but hate speech is, that's nothing but a double standard.

>We need to make it appealing to become one of these protected entities, so they self-certify and it isn't forced by the government.

Big companies like alphabet and facebook have government contracts. These things could be enforced without even passing any laws infringing on anyone. Of course, they don't want to do that.

>the real probably is government is too big
I agree, and therefore I don't think more regulations is the way to go.

>Companies want your money, not to kill you.
This.

>cable companies shouldn't be considered common carriers, that's obviously government overreach
>this particular website where people upload videos of funny cats should, though, because they are communicating to liberals and I don't like their liberal propaganda
Hypocrites.

You can't say cripplechan because it was relentlessly spammed on every board here for months.

>get out kid
fite me boomer ;^)
yeah but allowing government's to take this over is just bad in principle. Regardless of what argument you come up with. >I agree, and therefore I don't think more regulations is the way to go.
I don't think more regulation was the argument though. i'm pretty sure it was about enforcing the law that's already in place. They are giving big companies special treatment.

I really like the idea of a common carrier. You seem to be confusing me for someone you made up in your head.

I just think private platforms should exist, but especially large and "common" platforms should be given an opportunity to become a common carrier of sorts.

Yes. More importantly, they should also apply to the real world.

Fucking clueless socialists. Monopoly doesn't exist in a free market economy. You can't be anti-Apple (because 'muh freedom') and be opposed to free market.

infinity chan has way more features than shit shithole AND has a tor hidden service that shares its contents with the surface-web site.

>I don't think more regulation was the argument though.
People are saying that we should redefine a video uploading site to a common carrier and force them to be a platform for political views they may not agree too. That's government overreach if I ever saw it.

See above, as long as it's privately owned (aka private property), you should not be able to force anyone.

No where did I talk about force, I specifically outlined an idea to avoid it being forced. I think totally private forums should totally be able to exist. There is a line between small-medium private forum and what is more accurately described as "infrastructure" rather than any sort of community.

>You can't say cripplechan because it was relentlessly spammed on every board here for months.
doesn't mean the discrimination should continue.
Just because the jews have been destroying nations for centuries doesn't mean they deserve to continue to be persecuted in this day and age.

>I like the idea of a common carrier
If you think youtube should be a common carrier, you are saying that you like it to be forced. Either that, or I think you may not know what a common carrier is. In essence, a common carrier is forced to offer its service to everyone and failure to do so is illegal.

>here is a line between small-medium private forum and what is more accurately described as "infrastructure" rather than any sort of community.
Youtube does not provide an infrastructure, in the same sense cable companies does. They simply offer a service for uploading videos.

Surely the Russians have a youtube?

>I don't think more regulations is the way to go.
This is a huge problem with libertarians, conservatives and generally people seen as right wing today. Even classical liberals.

People will refuse voting on principle, because they don't belive they have a choice. This just means everyone else gets to decide.
White people will refuse to engage in identity politics. This means minorities have the power.
Libertarian-ish people refuse to support legislation or even non-invasive rules like i suggested, even if that would give them more liberty. This means the corporations, which already are very much in bed with the government, is only controlled by those who want to restrict your liberty.

>If you think youtube should be a common carrier
No, I said "like" a common carrier. A new set of laws, as outlined.

>Youtube does not provide an infrastructure
this is just intellectually disingenuous.

>infinity chan has way more features than shit shithole AND has a tor hidden service that shares its contents with the surface-web site.
yeah. t's a much better site yet everyone flocks to Jow Forums even they it's inferior
Kinda like apple get's away with robbing it's customers with 400% mark up prices. How do we let these people get away with this?
>That's government overreach if I ever saw it.
yeah that maybe but i'm sure making a new law which really would be too intrusive for companies that have such a large base. I mean news papers have laws they have to follow because they're words can do great damage to nations, the very same way youtube censorship could by allowing only one political view or side get all the coverage.

>No, I said "like" a common carrier. A new set of laws, as outlined.
Fair enough.

>this is just intellectually disingenuous.
But they don't, they provide a service. You don't use Youtube to store your own private videos, you use their service to share your videos with others in order to get as many views as possible. It's a service, not an infrastructure.

Food delivery is a service. The road they travel on is the infrastructure. Learn the difference.

>White people will refuse to engage in identity politics. This means minorities have the power.
Minorities only have the power where white people give them the power (read: on college campuses). They excerpt little influence in real life.

Name another company with the hardware (datacenters, cables, servers, etc) in place to take on the load of YouTube that isn't PornHub.

How long would it take to build this, non-infrastructure?

no, leave my internet alone you commie scum

this

this too

>How do we let these people get away with this?
The most popular thing is rarely the best, especially when taking price into consideration. Weather it be a beer, a car or computer... There's many reasons, people are rarely very interested in the specific thing, they take recommendations from uninformed friends, listen to ads, they are creatures of habit... Plus with communications like YT or say, discord you don't have much choice. No one will find you on vimeo.

There's also a another factor, competitors trying to break into the market have to compete to be better, established market leaders will only stall and try to restrict users.

>Minorities only have the power where white people give them the power (read: on college campuses). They excerpt little influence in real life.
That's a very general statement. can you be a little more precise?

>Plus with communications like YT or say, discord you don't have much choice. No one will find you on vimeo.
the problem is that it's "free".
Atleaset with beer and shit if your poor you'll go cheap and if your rich you'll toss your money down the sink for fun and the premium title of it that makes you feel you've accomplished something in life that's why you can give a company like apple $1 trillion dollars in profits even though their products aren't really that could and come with so many cons.

>That's a very general statement. can you be a little more precise?
They don't have any power really. they are just given it. Like you said before I think to many people deciding to not get involved because of principle but it's more like fear.

No taxation is ethical. It's theft.

You sound scared

It should apply to companies when they effectively control the flow of information

Google and Facebook should definitely be regulated. I don't think Youtube in itself should, nor should Twitter, Amazon etc.

>If you think youtube should be a common carrier, you are saying that you like it to be forced
DMCA safe harbour
Communications Decency Act of 1996
already on the fucking books
bs obscenity law, bs piracy (unauthorized sharing) laws
idealy both wouldnt exist, but in the real world these bad laws do exist, and we should try to use them responsibly to preseve fredoms, like GNU GPL used copyright protections to keep source code available
and just like people in support of net neutrality favored a bandaid on noxious isp abused over a far better libertarian solution: darknet/meshnet decentralization that in the real world wont ever gain enough users and enough legal, mainstream, popular, acceptable content to ever replace this godawful mess
>Jow Forums is biggest for a reason though
it is big because it is big. end of.
there is no value in speech if there is no audience to recieve it.
part of free speech is absolutely about acess to an audience (of people that are willing to listen ofc) any intermediary that blocks the audience from reciving the speech it wants to hear by noplatforming the speecker from your McSpeakersCorner is absolutely censoring. it doesnt matter if it is some "noble" attempt to rescue people from misinformation, obscenity, or "hurtful" speech.

>No taxation is ethical. It's theft.
So how do you propose government is funded? NGO style? with donors and benefactors like now?
>You sound scared
scared of what?

>gawker hating on FARC
Thank fuck, they got killed by a homo.

Facebook is irrelevant outside of FB users for information. If you don't use it, and there is almost no reason to use it, it might as well not exist. Kinda like 4chains but with more people.

Google is a bit more problematic due being the basically only decent search machine, so established, googling became synonym for searching. They definitely should be watched and stopped from doing shit like blacklisting pirate sites.

YT would be ridiculous since it's just a video hoster and there are too many options to do that just as well. Twitter is as irrelevant as FB. Amazon is basically just an e store, there are millions of these.

>They definitely should be watched and stopped from doing shit like blacklisting pirate sites.
>A company should be stopped from refusing service to criminal organisations

It's only criminal in cucked countries, since google is pretty much a worldwide monopoly outside of China, what right do they have to force their local laws on others?

no.
just make your own jewtube.

>what right do they have to force their local laws on others?
whilst your right with that argument of the servers of the blocked websites being in a legal country googles own search engine is housed where it is illegal so Google's obligation is to it's own local laws regardless.

Their obligations are to both. Just because CP is legal in country A, doesn't mean that company X providing it in country B won't deal with legal troubles there. Hell, there is the China example with google already, that a company either plays by the rules or fucks off.

It's a shame free countries don't actually gave the balls to take on tech companies or do a symbolic gesture like the pocket money EU fees.

no because the internet shouldn't be regulated how old are you 50? Any regulation on the internet in any way is a bad thing

99% of the internet is controlled by a handful of companies that do not believe in free speech and are all united in an effort to deplatform people and ideas they don't like. What's the lolbertarian plan to solve this? Start a bunch of billion dollar corporations to compete with natural monopolies?

>I dont like this platform because they delete things people say
>still use the platform
are you retarded? either shut up and use the platform or go somewhere else.

Voulinteer positions, private donations, providing services worthy purchase in a free market. If the government needs to steal private property from people to cover its costs then it has exceeded the scope of its duty.

i like the idea of "trickle up" economics; eliminate taxes completely for people below certain incomes, increase the number of usage based taxes like gas that are earmarked for specific public utilities, and give rich and poor alike an incentive to do their taxes properly by allowing them to select where and how their taxes are spent (like list various government departments and services and let the funds flow where they will) sidestepping shitty public servants - making governement more democratic and more like a proper business rather than an extortion racket

Go ahead, use the internet without every coming into contact with google

Why are you even on Jow Forums when you're this tech illiterate?

>What monopoly? You don't ever have to buy oil.

Attached: StandardOilLogo.png (441x382, 29K)

DTube and IGTV

#freeInfowars

>increase the number of usage based taxes like gas that are earmarked for specific public utilities
Well usage-based taxes make it much harder for poor people to break into higher classes. For example, here, there's 60% tax on gas and more tax on cars than the insurance costs, making it hard for poor people to own a car. Tax on income is pretty much the only tax that doesn't strike the poor in this way.

> give rich and poor alike an incentive to do their taxes properly by allowing them to select where and how their taxes are spent (like list various government departments and services and let the funds flow where they will) sidestepping shitty public servants
First off, people who are likely to commit tax fraud will most likely still do it because they're still losing equal amounts of money and most people don't care much about politics.

Second, this would never be implemented in a meaningful way, because when you chose where the funds go it's very close to anarchy(a non-forceful state) and the politicians wouldn't have much power. They'd never let that happen unless they could ignore it by balancing out departments themselves or severely limiting the choices.

insideedition.com/ex-wife-infowars-host-alex-jones-says-hes-worse-real-life-45752

Ex-Wife of Infowars Host Alex Jones Says He's 'Worse in Real Life'

>biggest for a reason though
Mods delete posts mentioning other english language imageboards
inb4 delet and ban

Yeah, oil and YouTube videos are the same.

Attached: 32055DC9-3A2C-4F02-B7C7-91AB8E3AF315.png (320x320, 94K)

>wife is hurt but says she isn't and pretends to be a loving mother

would_divorce_again/10

Attached: would_divorce_again out of 10.png (272x367, 57K)

They can't apply them in real life and you want those laws to be applied on the internet? Come on, OP, stop being a faggot.

The real problem is that there are not regulations so a fucking enterprise can't buy the competition and even buy companies unrelated with their core business, so they are not owning almost everything, being someone who says that 'the market will fix it by itself' is more stupid than being a commie.

>being so retarded you can't comprehend a simple analogy about monopolies.

You can’t monopolize user uploaded content that you don’t need to survive.

The monopoly here isn't the user content, it's the platform itself that dominates its respective media.

i hope you're just pretending to be retarded

monopolies have nothing to do with being popular christ what do they teach you at school

see

They do, though. the way the internet works you can clone pretty much anything and if you find a way to do it better or add some kind of new features that makes your copy more successful than the original, you'll either overtake the top spot or put enough financial strain on the top dog that they make you an offer of about what you'd make over the next decade to buy you out. Otherwise you just sit there as competition to the original, trying to achieve one of those outcomes, but your success or failure isn't determined by your competitor in most cases on the internet, it's determined by your ideas and your ability to implement them. You could make a website where people can upload videos and if you found a way to monetize it and make it sustainable you could start paying content creators for their videos, and if you made it better than YouTube, vimeo, etc it could actually pull in a significant amount of people. The thing is, somewhere down the line you stop caring about what people want and start caring about what the advertisers want and eventually your service turns to shit or one of the other big ones offer you an absurd amount of money to sell your site to them. But those sites are not the only ones that people can use and they're not prohibiting you from starting a competing site. If they actually HAD a monopoly then there'd be an antitrust suit.

Not really. There are other sites you can upload videos on. I share videos with people all the time and I don't have a YouTube channel.

Yes, I would like to receive $200K everytime I pass go.

>that time when microsoft thought they could compete by making msn video

Attached: 1494640439148.jpg (400x386, 23K)

Thats because nobody is paying creators as much and providing as easy of a platform to use on both ends
YouTube is that "just werks" thing

A monopoly would be if there was only one place on the Internet where people could post videos and then other people could watch them. YouTube is not a monopoly. It's just the most successful company in its field. And yes YouTube is a for profit owned by Google so of course they could do whatever they want with the platform. It might not look fair but in reality content creators need YouTube a lot more than YouTube needs content creators (they are easily replacable)

youtu.be/fL8WNdi1jIM