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.

TODAY IS THE DAY

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.

:shirt: Check out **Tim Pool's TeeSpring Merch**:
<https://teespring.com/stores/timcast>

: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.

Twitter wants to be known as a public utility.

The second it said that, it should've relinquished its rights to ban whoever they wanted.

And regulating them means regulating any start ups to the same degree. It could very well cement them as the public square. The only people that want that are Big Tech and the government.

Telling you, repeal section 230

II would much rather see these sites fall by their own hand so the next sites to rise don't make the same mistake. YT and Twitter could very easily say that they need more gov hand outs to protect the service. This is not good for compation.