Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bloop_bleep]

The fact that some people don't go further than Youtube to seek knowledge doesn't mean we should treat Youtube like a public forum where they have to enforce free speech laws. It's a business, and businesses get to decide what they do and don't stand by or for, to the degree the law requires.

No, I think that's exactly what it means. The fact that a whole spectrum of high-profile websites are able to coordinate with each other to take down someone like Alex Jones essentially completely from the Internet is deeply troubling. Now there's no way for Alex Jones or his platform to attract new viewers. Perhaps in this specific case the guy may have deserved it, but if it can happen to Alex Jones, there's really no telling to whom it could happen next.

YouTube has a near-monopoly over Internet videos. You wanna watch a video, you almost always have to go to YouTube. YouTube can censor whatever they want on their platform and essentially eliminate a viewpoint from the majority of people's consumption, because few people will go combing through obscure websites specifically in order to find opposing viewpoints. Maybe that's not such a great thing, but we can't exactly directly control the actions of 300 million people, now can we? What we can do, however, is severely restrict YouTube and other big Internet companies' abilities to censor information on their platforms, or at least loosen their grip on their markets.

[nenjin]

The fact that some people don't go further than Youtube to seek knowledge doesn't mean we should treat Youtube like a public forum where they have to enforce free speech laws. It's a business, and businesses get to decide what they do and don't stand by or for, to the degree the law requires.

No, I think that's exactly what it means. The fact that a whole spectrum of high-profile websites are able to coordinate with each other to take down someone like Alex Jones essentially completely from the Internet is deeply troubling. Now there's no way for Alex Jones or his platform to attract new viewers. Perhaps in this specific case the guy may have deserved it, but if it can happen to Alex Jones, there's really no telling to whom it could happen next.

YouTube has a near-monopoly over Internet videos. You wanna watch a video, you almost always have to go to YouTube. YouTube can censor whatever they want on their platform and essentially eliminate a viewpoint from the majority of people's consumption, because few people will go combing through obscure websites specifically in order to find opposing viewpoints. Maybe that's not such a great thing, but we can't exactly directly control the actions of 300 million people, now can we? What we can do, however, is severely restrict YouTube and other big Internet companies' abilities to censor information on their platforms, or at least loosen their grip on their markets.

#1. Infowarz is alive and well. Google didn't just kick AJ off the internet. Youtube shut down one venue, but he has plenty of other outlets to be heard and to make money. Including his own website he owns and operates.

#2. Youtube has a near monopoly on internet videos due to its popularity. It doesn't have some secret technology or competitive advantage which prevents others from competing with them. They don't have contractual arrangements like the old Ma'Bell Telephone company. People simply don't want to spend the capital to compete with youtube or create the advertising network to pay contributors so they'll put videos on their website instead of youtube. That is not a reason to make Youtube a public utility that has to cleave explicitly to free speech laws.

If Youtube is a public utility, then the internet is a public utility. If youtube has to adhere to strict free speech policies, then our internet providers shouldn't be able to arbitrarily raise our rates, throttle our speeds or pick and choose which websites and businesses get the best throughput. And yet that's exactly how things are going.

Again, this whole thing is about money, not free speech. AJ can make money and have his free speech, he's just not making as much of it because he's run his mouth one too many times and the biggest internet venue out there is sick of his shit. This is essentially about jealousy over youtube's success, like everyone believes they're entitled to a slice of that pie, and if they can't get it, oh well, now my RIGHTS are being affected. My RIGHT to MAKE FUCKING MONEY. Which AJ still does handsomely.

[PTTG??]

Let's keep in mind, Alex Jones did venture into stochastic terrorism. He tried and arguably succeeded in inciting lone wolves to attack his political opponents.

I agree that Youtube has too much power to shape discourse. Nobody competes with Youtube because nobody CAN compete with Youtube. That said, the world is better off with Infowars gone, and would only be better if there was legal action taken against AJ to dismantle his public image.

[nenjin]

Nobody competes with Youtube because nobody CAN compete with Youtube.

The same thing was said about the major news networks back in the day. Remember when CNN first started out, as a shitty little cable news program that the standard news networks treated with disdain?

Funny how competition seems to be a bedrock of American economic thinking until, suddenly, it's not. And by suddenly I mean "we're not going to spend that kind of money. They need to change."

[Rolan7]

The fact that some people don't go further than Youtube to seek knowledge doesn't mean we should treat Youtube like a public forum where they have to enforce free speech laws. It's a business, and businesses get to decide what they do and don't stand by or for, to the degree the law requires.

No, I think that's exactly what it means. The fact that a whole spectrum of high-profile websites are able to coordinate with each other to take down someone like Alex Jones essentially completely from the Internet is deeply troubling. Now there's no way for Alex Jones or his platform to attract new viewers. Perhaps in this specific case the guy may have deserved it, but if it can happen to Alex Jones, there's really no telling to whom it could happen next.

YouTube has a near-monopoly over Internet videos. You wanna watch a video, you almost always have to go to YouTube. YouTube can censor whatever they want on their platform and essentially eliminate a viewpoint from the majority of people's consumption, because few people will go combing through obscure websites specifically in order to find opposing viewpoints. Maybe that's not such a great thing, but we can't exactly directly control the actions of 300 million people, now can we? What we can do, however, is severely restrict YouTube and other big Internet companies' abilities to censor information on their platforms, or at least loosen their grip on their markets.

#1. Infowarz is alive and well. Google didn't just kick AJ off the internet. Youtube shut down one venue, but he has plenty of other outlets to be heard and to make money. Including his own website he owns and operates.

#2. Youtube has a near monopoly on internet videos due to its popularity. It doesn't have some secret technology or competitive advantage which prevents others from competing with them. They don't have contractual arrangements like the old Ma'Bell Telephone company. People simply don't want to spend the capital to compete with youtube or creating the advertising network to pay contributors so they'll put videos on their website instead of youtube. That is not a reason to make Youtube a public utility that has to cleave explicitly to free speech laws.

If Youtube is a public utility, then the internet is a public utility. If youtube has to adhere to strict free speech policies, then our internet providers shouldn't be able to arbitrarily raise our rates, throttle our speeds or pick and choose which websites and businesses get the best throughput. And yet that's exactly how things are going.

Again, this whole thing is about money, not free speech. AJ can make money and have his free speech, he's just not making as much of it because he's run his mouth one too many times and the biggest internet venue out there is sick of his shit. This is essentially about jealousy over youtube's success, like everyone believes they're entitled to a slice of that pie, and if they can't get it, oh well, no my RIGHTS are being affected. My RIGHT to MAKE FUCKING MONEY. Which AJ still does handsomely.

That's a nice detailed explanation.  A concise version:  They weren't able to compete in that "marketplace of ideas" they kept lauding.  So now they claim that private organizations are "censoring" them by not *actively supporting* their extreme, unpopular ideas.

You can't say that Alex Jones has been "taken down from the Internet" without putting "essentially" in there, because he hasn't been taken down from the Internet.  His content isn't profitable enough for Youtube (due to his "controversy", putting it mildly), but he's free to host it on his own - as he does.

Some content *is* taken down from the Internet, actually illegal stuff.  That's not what's happening here.  Youtube has no monopoly, there are numerous perfectly usable video streaming services and self-hosting is reasonably possible.  ISPs do have local monopolies, but they're not blocking Alex Jones.

[WealthyRadish]

I'm not so eager to happily hand tech monopolies and governments an enormous additional capacity for both soft and hard censorship over pretexts today that seem so paltry, but it seems that this is a disagreement of premises. Eventually ISPs will control traffic and VPNs will be illegal, but I've been surprised to see otherwise progressive people trying to accelerate the process over the last few years (not saying this particularly about this forum, I mean the general trend).

[bloop_bleep]

#1. Infowarz is alive and well. Google didn't just kick AJ off the internet. Youtube shut down one venue, but he has plenty of other outlets to be heard and to make money. Including his own website he owns and operates.

#2. Youtube has a near monopoly on internet videos due to its popularity. It doesn't have some secret technology or competitive advantage which prevents others from competing with them. They don't have contractual arrangements like the old Ma'Bell Telephone company. People simply don't want to spend the capital to compete with youtube or create the advertising network to pay contributors so they'll put videos on their website instead of youtube. That is not a reason to make Youtube a public utility that has to cleave explicitly to free speech laws.

If Youtube is a public utility, then the internet is a public utility. If youtube has to adhere to strict free speech policies, then our internet providers shouldn't be able to arbitrarily raise our rates, throttle our speeds or pick and choose which websites and businesses get the best throughput. And yet that's exactly how things are going.

Again, this whole thing is about money, not free speech. AJ can make money and have his free speech, he's just not making as much of it because he's run his mouth one too many times and the biggest internet venue out there is sick of his shit. This is essentially about jealousy over youtube's success, like everyone believes they're entitled to a slice of that pie, and if they can't get it, oh well, no my RIGHTS are being affected. My RIGHT to MAKE FUCKING MONEY. Which AJ still does handsomely.

#1. False. Facebook, Apple, and Twitter all kicked Infowars from their sites at nearly the same time as YouTube. Literally all the major Internet companies kicked him at once. He's essentially gone from the Internet, because no-one will visit his site unless they are specifically looking for it.

#2. So? That reinforces my point, because it means the government will have to directly interfere because good ol' capitalism is unwilling to take up the task.

As for throttling speeds, I agree with you there. That's my point. Internet companies should no longer be allowed to arbitrarily exert their will over what has become the largest and most essential information distribution network in the history of the world. Not ISPs, not Google or Apple or Facebook.

[Gentlefish]

#1. False. Facebook, Apple, and Twitter all kicked Infowars from their sites at nearly the same time as YouTube. Literally all the major Internet companies kicked him at once. He's essentially gone from the Internet, because no-one will visit his site unless they are specifically looking for it.

There are other video hoting services. Vimeo, Dailymotion, and Streamable are freely available off the top of my head.

But they don't let you monetize your video.

[bloop_bleep]

Out of those three, two I haven't even heard of, and the other I have but never visited.

Get my point?

EDIT: Besides, the point isn't specifically about Alex Jones. The point is that if they are able to do it to one person, they are able to do it to anyone. It is entirely possible that they used this Alex Jones thing as a way to test the waters, see how much they can get away with by removing someone who is widely hated anyway.

[nenjin]

#1. False. Facebook, Apple, and Twitter all kicked Infowars from their sites at nearly the same time as YouTube. Literally all the major Internet companies kicked him at once. He's essentially gone from the Internet, because no-one will visit his site unless they are specifically looking for it.

So Free Speech now means Free Marketing? I don't think so. You're entitled to say what you want. You're not entitled to have the rest of (the internet, the country, the newspapers) give you time and space to get noticed unless you are running for public office.

And why should the government get involved when capitalism fails to do the thing it says it's good at? If people aren't willing to spend the money to make the money, why should the government step in and spend ALL OUR MONEY to break up a "popopoly"? This isn't water, power, housing, material resources, actual education or food. This is edutainment at best.

As for throttling speeds, I agree with you there. That's my point. Internet companies should no longer be allowed to arbitrarily exert their will over what has become the largest and most essential information distribution network in the history of the world. Not ISPs, not Google or Apple or Facebook.

I can't see a future where both the infrastructure and the content are considered a public utility. There's no incentive to create content under the structure, and I'm guessing if people don't like Google/Apple censorship as it is now, they'd really fucking hate government censorship. Which is essentially what you're angling for, because if it's a public utility then it falls under the governments jurisdiction on how it's used and for what. If the companies themselves are not responsible for policing the content on their platforms in some way, then the government will step in instead. And I don't think any of us want that. I want the infrastructure to be a public utility, and what goes on that infrastructure to remain the purview of the owners/operators. Whether that's one red faced psychopath shouting in to a camera or a board of west coast execs deciding how they do or don't want their brand represented.

Remember, at the end of the day, this entire ecosystem exists because of advertising dollars. As soon as those guys don't feel like their interests are being met, the whole thing starts to fall apart.

Out of those three, two I haven't even heard of, and the other I have but never visited.

Get my point?

I've been aware of all three for years. How now, brown cow?

EDIT: Besides, the point isn't specifically about Alex Jones. The point is that if they are able to do it to one person, they are able to do it to anyone. It is entirely possible that they used this Alex Jones thing as a way to test the waters, see how much they can get away with by removing someone who is widely hated anyway.

I don't doubt they were testing the waters. But I don't necessarily agree that they'll be coming for everyone's little gaming channel or whatever. If they started banning people for criticizing youtube and Google, that's not something that would go unnoticed or would happen without consequences.

[Telgin]

What?  Trump's assertion that this is just a glitch in the stock markets isn't true?  Shock and awe.  I'm glad I'm not going to be retiring for a few decades.  Of course, anything can happen between now and then...

Not to pin this solely on him, but I wonder who or what Trump will blame.

At least it's conceivable that the economic downturn might not hit the average person as hard as 2008 did.  Lowered profits for Apple isn't going to get a ton of people laid off and out of homes, anyway, but weakening industrial sectors could be bad news for a lot of people.

[SalmonGod]

Business executives everywhere will use it as an excuse to harden their crunch on workers, whether it's legitimate or not.  "The imaginary number game is looking bad" is universal code for "lay off everyone with seniority you can survive without, cut benefits, freeze hiring and annual merit increases, scare the remaining workforce into working harder, and PROFIT!"... because sorry guys, but you know... "economy".  Nothing personal.  Blame democrats.  If only they'd ease regulations more...

[Kagus]

YouTube is money

This is precisely why I go to LiveLeak for my ASMR.

[smjjames]

I wonder how much of it is just the bear market cycle kicking in since that bull market couldn’t last forever?

I suppose it’s also just Trumps way of saying ‘the economy is healthy, this is just the normal bear market. There is nothing wrong with the US economy, we’ll be fine, there is nothing to worry about.’ Only in fewer words. Though I guess being all word salad like that could make one think that there is something going on and the person speaking is just trying to calm people down.

Still, when the recession does come, it’s going to be a real challenge for them. Are they going to end up being Herbert Hoover (for his handling of things) or are they going to be <insert whichever President you think handled an economic crisis the best>?

The partial shutdown doesn’t help in having the market not freak out though.

[nenjin]

I'm sure he'll find some way to say the Wall will save The Economy.