Is YouTube a publisher or a platform?

Every phone is spying. I give profit to the underdog, not $Apple$, etc.

They don't have direct power over you. Even if you aren't an American you almost certainly live in a Five Eyes or at least a Fourteen Eyes country meaning everything the Americans get on you will be shared with your local government to better fuck you in the ass with.

they give money to the content makers for making videos through ad money etc urging them to create more for the site.

sounds like GOP is against the free market and free enterprise. Statists gonna statist, I guess.

>Huawei
You are going from the pot to the microwave.
Get a Librem 5

>google
>leftist
7/10 made me reply

Attached: image.jpg (750x747, 413K)

>Librem 5
literally a honeypot

It uses 100% free software you can literally use Gentoo if you don't trust prebuilt binaries.

Attached: That's gonna be a yikes from me dawg.jpg (960x960, 43K)

FUCK, HE'S GONNA REPEAL CDA230

So expensive, I might get a pine phone though. Esp if they make a mid tier one for $300

Youtube is a loss leader. Operates on a loss but the information based on trends and propaganda opportunities are too great to pass over because it's central to alphabet's operations

better the CIA nigger you know than the CIA nigger you don't

kys

Someone's gotta do it. I'm really disappointed democrats refused to do anything when the dangers were clear and present over a decade ago let alone now. It's insane we have to rely on republicans getting buttmad

Yes

Muh no true scotsmant

absolutely based and red pilled #woke

Attached: 1533560390944.jpg (1200x1125, 218K)

Publisher.

>huawei
>proton instead of based sdf.org
Pleb

this, time to be liable for everything they publish

Huawei phones use Android. You're getting spied on by Google and China

>huawei
preorder a librem or get an old N series Nokia, dumbfuck

pleb

Attached: .jpg (1200x900, 161K)

WHERE IS THE TWENTY ONE PILOTS HITLER VIDEO!!???

Absolutely fucking based and nostalgiapilled

>that ugly piece of shit
absolutely fucking degenerative, cringe and bluepilled

Both.
For those who monetize their content, publisher.
For those who don't, platform.

>sounds like GOP is against the free market and free enterprise. Statists gonna statist, I guess.
Government gave them special laws to exclude them from liabilities on the basis that they were a platform providing a service rather than a publisher that selectively chooses which content they show. If they selectively delete content they dislike they forfeit those protections. There's no need for any new laws, just for the existing ones to actually be enforced.

already did, anonkun
protonmail
mi
startpage

Fpbp

It's a public utility

>time to be liable for everything they publish
I’d be willing to give up Jow Forums if it meant the death of social media.

Elsa spiderman video are Indians government conspiracy psyop to make future generations of america brain dead so they can become a superpower

is OP a nigger or a trannie?

Remember when freedom of speech was a corner stone of liberal politics?
Also
>not understanding the difference between being a publisher or a platform
Double digit IQs should leave

youtube.com/watch?v=cF3Eb5ReGSA

It's a platform but I'm ok with the publisher meme if it prevents censorship from fags

They've been deleting content they don't like for literally their entire existence. Gore, extreme violence, porn, for instance. But now they've just deleted stuff Jow Forums likes and you're all freaking out.

they arbitrarily changed their TOS to delete stuff that jewish groups didn't like practically overnight

The ability to change the TOS is part of their TOS, presumably. It's not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for awhile, there's news articles every week or so about how youtube is tired of racist content or pseudo-pedo content. Eventually all that shit is gonna go.
You are always at the mercy of a corporation when you use a centralized service. Vimeo was a platform that didn't allow video game content for awhile (although a quick search indicates they now do). From what I can tell, Twitch ONLY allows video game content. But they're still not publishers.

This isn't a liberal or conservative lesson, this is a Richard Stallman lesson. Encourage people to switch to something like Peertube that is distributed rather than centrally controlled.

You don't understand the network effect.

Whenever the value of your service is proportional to the number of people using that service, the end result is always a monopoly. For example, part of the value of Twitter is the ability to connect to so many people. A smaller platform might offer a much better service, but if you have 10 users and Twitter has a billion, everybody will use twitter.

The reason people are using Youtube is because everyone else is using youtube. That's why people click videos that have high viewcounts, instead of videos that they might find interesting (which is why youtube often hides the viewcount on recommended videos, so that more people will click lower view videos).

This is simply how human psychology works. With social networks like this, there WILL be a monopoly service, inevitably every single time. Whoever gets that role will also have all the money to hire the best, and become a completely unstoppable snowball. Vastly inflating the wealth of the CEO, and giving the company the power to abuse their consumers (which is just the general public). Effectively putting the public square in private hands

I don't know if that's inherent, popular social media networks change. People like shit like discord now because they can have their own chatrooms rather than making everything be completely public. The internet is the square. The web is a subsquare of that. Everything else is a bunch of overlapping subsquares.

If youtube dies I'll be mildly amused. AFAIK it doesn't even make any money. Everyone should host their own content. If it's less of a social network, all the better in my opinion.

Sometimes people do want private chatting, and so that's why services like discord exist. But we're not talking about that. Because people also want validation, which is why social networks exist. And that is why these social networks will become monopolies over time. And it's even worse, the monopolies keep centralizing and forming even bigger superstructures, such as Google combining with youtube, or Facebook buying up Instagram. The snowball goes out of control.

The same thing was happening in the old days with the telecom companies. Everyone wanted to be on the largest telephone network possible, so they could connect to as many people as possible, creating these huge monopolies that dominated the market. That's why we passed the Telecommuncations Act in the first place. Forcing these companies to put calls through to competitors for example, and segmenting the market so the service providers didn't also literally own the telephone wires going to your house.

the chinks will share the data with their own gov at worst
unlike us companies that are selling it left and right for money

I think telecoms are more analogous to ISPs, which should be dumb pipes to the internet. Because that is where an actual restriction is.

But once you're online, you can view whatever you want. I can go to Jow Forums. It's great. But I'm also glad the rest of the internet isn't like Jow Forums. That's great too. I can go to more moderated tech forums that are more relaxed and less ephemeral. I don't actually visit youtube to listen to people talk, I just use it for music sometimes. I think you're overestimating what percentage people are stuck on youtube.

If Google gets split from Youtube due to antitrust, I think that's good. More decentralized. But if they are forced to host any particular content, it will make the web more homogeneous, because it will have implications for everyone else. That's not a good thing.

absolutely based answer

Youtube is a jew controlled anti-white hate platform and hate enabler. All the people running it need to be tried in courts for crimes against humanity and locked away for life.

have sex boomer

it really is interesting how that symbiotic relationship between "creators" and advertising, as well as the top down imposition of 'allowed content' monetization policies have blurred the lines between the advertisement and the "content" itself
it uncanny how fast the creators morph from whatever originality they have in their first postings to propaganda spewers later on.

youtube feels very much like some sort of skinner box, and it operates not only on passive viewers, but on the "creative people" themselves