Message from @MEE6
Discord ID: 492304231651606529
I would tend to agree but we are not in the good old days. I don't really mind YT or FB banning ppl, it sucks and it's unfair but it's not the end of the world, the net is a big place. I think a site like YT has the right to remove anyone for anyreason and I would not like that right taken away through regulation or a bill of rights.
I think we can all agree that government regulation is possibly the worst thing that can happen here. But a bill of rights is not much different. Look at the people in power, the people that would be writing it and voting on it. These people can not be trusted with such an important task right now.
FB is falling out of favour in the west and it's a trend that will happen in Africa as well. I think we should ride this out for a decade or so and see where the chips land.
We are like a toddler right now that's learning to run, we need to be allowed to fall over a few times.
Tbh, I think government regulation is required. Youtube and twitter have way too big of a monopoly on online speech
That's nonsense. The tech industry has formed a kind of cartel and if it is allowed to, it is completely possible to seal a given website off the net. Google search alone makes or breaks businesses.
The question is Youtube more of a newspaper or more like a telephone. I think the answer there is obvious. Google makes very little content on it's own and is really just hosting and indexing content for other people. It's much more like a telephone or the postal mail. We wouldn't claim that AT&T has a "right to deny phone service for any reason." We also know what happens when the telecoms are allowed to cheat--They elected the only president to have lost a majority of the electorate and get elected anyway by leaking information to their preferred political party.
When big companies like Google or Western Union can essentially dictate democracy by simply refusing service, it becomes a question of whether we really live in a free state.
As it is, Europe is regulating the internet but Europe doesn't have the same commitment to freedom of speech the US does. The US *must* counter-regulate.
As I see it "where the chips land" likely involves a de-facto oligarchy. That should really be avoided.
When you are talking on the phone to are not broadcasting your self to the world. YT is far more of a newspaper or free TV network and they absolutely have the right to say what is and is not shown.
Google is a different story.
Now you're being really odd. How do you plan to regulate Google but not Youtube?
I'd say it would make more sense to be reversed. Google Search is extremely hard to regulate, let's put it aside for a bit. Google is just a company, it's not the company that's the problem, it's the behavior.
YouTube is much more of a platform. A newspaper has an editor and a very limited number of articles a day. YouTube is automated and houses exabytes of videos uploaded by people so other people can watch them. If you want an idea of broadcasting yourself to the world, think then of ham radio. Youtube is much closer to infrastructure (a telephone) than a meticulously curated product produced by a dedicated team of people. It also serves as a public square, which makes the "broadcasting" argument against regulation even more dubious.
In the US, there is an argument that it is not really justified to use land control to completely disrupt political speech and organization.
Telecoms are explicitly not allowed to deny phone service for this very reason.
*some exceptions for economic arguments, like cost of laying wire and serving an area. Usually there's some kind of government deal in these cases to cover the costs.
YouTube at scale shouldn't really have these kinds of limits, so a blanket "no censorship" rule (with some minor, specific exceptions like stuff that's illegal) is practical.
You aren't going to just replace YouTube either. The network effects are strong. And there is a strong viewer-producer migration issue. YouTube would have to become nigh unusable to trigger a mass migration.
We also have seen what happened when Gab tried to replace Twitter. It's on neither the Apple nor Android store.
And then there's Freestrtr, and it's only a matter of time before they come for BitChute and Minds.
Again, Google can make stuff effectively vanish by removing it from search. Or removing it from the Android store.
In the 90s, Microsoft got broken up in an antitrust suit for bundling a browser with an OS. Now we live in walled gardens of curated apps where the platform has unlimited power to decide who can and cannot do business..
When Android has 80% of the market, and Apple has roughly the other 20%, this is a problem.
And the two companies have something of a revolving door of people.
But that requires regulation of the apple/android store. Not necessarily regulation of Apple or Google themselves.
@Poppy Rider If you want to talk about this a bit further, feel free to PM or flag me. I need to go.
real life stuff just happened.
:dollar: Support **Tim Pool** on Patreon (exclusive rewards available):
<https://www.patreon.com/timcast>
The influencer network thing... Well, it does claim to utilise a snowball system. Which is genuinly useful to get some estimation of groups youd not gain access to such as crime syndicates. But if they did genuinly use a snowball system, how can they possibly have come across Chris Raygun but not Lacy Green?
@pratel i read your wall of messages good shit bro 👍
@Poppy Rider Poppy harlow im not for banning people when they constantly evolve terms of service
I didn't say I wanted to reg Google. My point is that the issues with Google Search are different to the issues with YT.
I wouldn't compere YT to ham. Ham is a decentralised system. You could knock out all but two nodes and it would still work. YT may be bigger than a TV net work but it works in a very similar way. We have to keep in mind that any regs put on sites like YT are going to apply to others. A no censorship policy will hurt smaller companies when the advertisers don't want their stuff associated with the extremes.
Your right YT isn't going anywhere any time soon. It runs at a massive loss already and google would be willing to absorb a bit more if it cemented them in place.
We already have antitrust and monopoly laws. You say you fear an oligarchy but that is exactly what I see happening with calls for regulation. Much like the ppl screaming for censorship then complain when they get censored, I fear demanding that YT and GS be completely open will make it to expensive for startups to get a foot hold. Creating a de-facto oligarchy anyway. We see it here in the UK, the Gov get unfavourable coverage from the BBC so they start waving the regulation stick in their face and look what happens, 8 out of 10 ppl on the BBC are anti-Brexit.
Jack declared twitter as a public square
but still people are silenced from that public square <:TimThink:482277772497125378>
The best thing we can do with Twitter now is use it as a billboard for other sites. When poeple complain that we stay within the rules and ppl don't really know what we think, 'it's a sanitised version of white supremacy' Then we tell them that what they campaigned for.
@Abel he did i memba dat and trump cant ban people so why is twatter allowed to ? And dont give me its their platform bs
It's not just "a platform" when there's literally no serious competition
It's the *only* platform
IMO, no one should be banned unless they post something actually illegal.
💯 agree ^
I like exclusivity of smart people.
So what happens if I want to start a twitter for Christian fundamentalist. It's designed to be a bubble, I don't want any disagreement to happen on my site. Am I allowed to ban ppl? Where dose your rule stand with freedom of association?
But that should be for more specific ENCLAVES.
To ban someone from the entire service is a little ridiculous.
It's the equivalent of banning someone from THE FORMAT of all forums.
That's how big these services are now.
They're the equivalent of every forum in the world combining into a giant ultra-forum.