YouTube Banned Me For “Hate Speech”

Darth said:

Their business their rules doesn't all of a sudden stop because "they are big and I don't agree with them."

Click to expand...

Willjr75 said:

@Darth is correct. Their house, their rules.

The problem here is that alternative platforms do a poor job of making an alternative. Places like Full30 don’t produce an app. People don’t want an online internet website that can only be used with an internet browser to use. They want and need an app. An app that allows them to share from it, go live from it, and has the ability to cast to their televisions. One that can work in the background. One that gives advertisers an incentive to advertise on it.

Then these places like Full30 don’t work with other companies to band together. So what you end up having is 3 or 4 different alternative sites doing the same thing as Full30 competing with each other on who will be the dominant crap service that isn’t an app. That fragmentation cannot beat YouTube. If they banded together, they can actually produce one solid alternative that’s beneficial to the viewer and the advertiser.

We can only blame ourselves. The ability to create a superior app that’s better than YouTube is there.

Click to expand...

ManrisFrack said:

Is YouTube actually a monopoly? There are at least a dozen other video hosting services out there. I know because I've been looking for an alternative. The problem is that YouTube has far more content, far better search and curating abilities, and a more easily consumed service overall. Except for their censorship, they have the best product/service. I'm open to forcefully breaking them away from Google but I think it's a dangerous precedent that needs very firm justification. We start swinging the government axe, who knows what we'll hit - especially with half the country whining about how they aren't getting their fair share. Is there a way to mitigate the network effects that Blimey mentioned without using .gov to chop up a corporation?

I do generally agree the more government is a terrible idea. Government can't do much well. Unfortunately, governmental regulation of the internet is a door that was opened decades ago. This whole issue was created, in part, by government protection of internet companies. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects them from litigation but set no clear boundaries on regulation of content. The courts came behind and tried to draw those lines but with Google's war chest that means nothing. For instance, it seems to me that YouTube is getting very close to the behavior that the 9th Circuit deemed beyond immunity in Roommates.com. Their lawyers must know this but still think it's a winnable fight.

I don't think we can remove section 230 protection though. This site, and others like it, would fold immediately under the legal liabilities. Set aside all the 'borrowed' content in the Funny and Political threads and The Bar - just stuff like the NRA hate and 'Hi-Points are garbage' might draw fire.

I think we need to set tight and clear boundaries as to what providers can censor while enjoying 230 immunity. Give up the immunity and you can ban/censor/etc. until your heart's content. Consider that Europe has already taken steps to limit free speech on the internet. If we do nothing, we will end up living under those restrictions. Companies will not create and maintain two different moderation structures unless they have to. I think that's part of the reason that they are begging for more government regulation - regulation that they will no doubt lobby into being the cheapest for them to abide by.

Click to expand...

spat said:

Wouldn't matter.

You could exactly duplicate all the software and websites YouTube has and spend a billion dollars and you couldn't produce a conservative alternative.

People don't post videos to the alternatives because there are no users to watch then. There are no users because there are no videos.

We don't need to break up the tech giants the way Ma Bell was broken up, we just need their networks opened up to competition.

When they broke up Ma Bell they created rules that forced them to allow competitors to access their network Competitive local exchange carrier - Wikipedia

They need to do the equivalent with Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

Click to expand...

spat said:

Do you agree with the breakup of Ma Bell ?

A market with an effective monopoly is not a free market.

Click to expand...