- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is cancelling a YouTube channel a digital book burning?
Posted on 6/24/20 at 8:43 am to Lonnie Utah
Posted on 6/24/20 at 8:43 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
So what you are tying to say is that if folks are lazy and only rely on 1 platform to get their information they'll have a singular point of view and that's a monopoly?
He wants the government to assign people what websites they can visit and what search engines they can use. I hope I get Bing!
This post was edited on 6/24/20 at 8:44 am
0
Posted on 6/24/20 at 8:58 am to Lonnie Utah
No. What I am saying is Youtube has the Google platform market dominance AND it is now aggressively Editorializing and controlling CONTENT. It picks and chooses what content is allowed (Progressive Orthodoxy) like a PUBLISHER when it is actually a PLATFORM. A monopolistic platform at that. Which is why the FCC is about to correctly put them on notice.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:00 am to Lsupimp
quote:
It picks and chooses what content is allowed (Progressive Orthodoxy) like a PUBLISHER when it is actually a PLATFORM.
Twitter is definitely beyond being a platform now.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:13 am to dewster
Google controls approximately 88% of search advertising revenue. Google owns Youtube. Google is a monopoly. We now have platform monopolies controlling both the editorial side and the advertising side. If you do not COMPLY with their editorial POV they will cut off your revenue. On ALL their related platforms.
And yet, people here will line up thousands deep to defend this new Tech Oligarchy. Even while said Tech oligarchy limits their speech, promotes a specific political and cultural orthodoxy, divulges and monetizes their personal data, plays along with the CCP like a good boy, rigs the game against them etc. It's twisted.
And yet, people here will line up thousands deep to defend this new Tech Oligarchy. Even while said Tech oligarchy limits their speech, promotes a specific political and cultural orthodoxy, divulges and monetizes their personal data, plays along with the CCP like a good boy, rigs the game against them etc. It's twisted.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:15 am to goofball
YouTube calls itself a free speech platform. Unless you directly threaten someone or commit a crime in the video, then it is absolutely digital book burning. If they want to be able to control content and become a publisher, then that’s fine, but they have to stop calling themselves a free speech platform.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:17 am to OMLandshark
quote:
it is absolutely digital book burning.
I think that's how I'll refer to this cancel culture practice from now on.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:38 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Are you familiar with the term monopoly?
I know what a monopoly is. You obviously don't.
While dominant market share is certainly a factor in determining if a firm has violated anti-trust law, it is by no means the only factor. A firm that has monopoly power has not broken any laws. It is the actions taken by the firm to gain or maintain that monopoly power that determine if the firm is in violation of anti-trust law.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:44 am to OMLandshark
quote:
YouTube calls itself a free speech platform.
No it doesn't. It's a private forum that moderates the content posted on it. Just like this one.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:53 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
It is the actions taken by the firm to gain or maintain that monopoly power that determine if the firm is in violation of anti-trust law.
An 88 percent market share in search advertising is by definition a monopoly. There is a barrier to free market entry. Even Microsoft with all their vast resources, cannot get past the 5% mark with Bing. It would be virtually impossible to have more of a monopoly. They control the platform (and sub platforms) through ad revenue and now they are implementing editorial control as well. It's a monopoly of Orthodoxy now. Which pleases Leftist ideologues such as yourself because your message becomes the only "correct" message.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:55 am to Lsupimp
quote:
No. What I am saying is Youtube has the Google platform market dominance AND it is now aggressively Editorializing and controlling CONTENT. It picks and chooses what content is allowed (Progressive Orthodoxy) like a PUBLISHER when it is actually a PLATFORM. A monopolistic platform at that. Which is why the FCC is about to correctly put them on notice.
But people are free to post their content on other platforms. The fact that they don't is on them, not youtube. The user is still free to make a choice. It's no different than an author submitting a book concept to a publisher and the publisher passing on the book. They are always free to self publish. Sure their reach may not be as wide, but they have not lost the ability to express their viewpoint and exercise their first amendment rights. How hard is this concept to get? The only difference is the size and scale of the companies. This is where the slippery slope begins. If we allow the government to start dictating content based on company size, then in my mind it becomes a true 1st amendment infringement (of the companies right to control content).
I guess I have a different perspective because I remember using the internet when it was text based. I remember when Yahoo, webcrawler and lycos were the dominate search engines. I remember the first browser wars between IE and Netscape. I remember when Word Perfect was the dominate word processor. The point I'm trying to make is all of these platforms were #1 or #2 in their time. Pretty much all of them are gone today. These things are plastic and just because a company is on top today, that doesn't mean they will stay there.
When you inject government intervention, even when well intentioned, there is an unsavory trickle down effect though our economy.
This post was edited on 6/24/20 at 10:08 am
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:57 am to goofball
quote:
Eliminating a viewpoint from social media is more direct censorship.
you always have the option of using a different platform or hosting your own
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:59 am to goofball
quote:
Do we have angry mobs demanding that libraries don’t stick books? Because we definitely have that now with social media accounts that provide inconvenient viewpoints.
Oh... so you're into catering to angry mobs now? You must feel like a pig in shite right about now.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:02 am to goofball
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:03 am to Lsupimp
quote:
An 88 percent market share in search advertising is by definition a monopoly. There is a barrier to free market entry. Even Microsoft with all their vast resources, cannot get past the 5% mark with Bing. It would be virtually impossible to have more of a monopoly. They control the platform (and sub platforms) through ad revenue and now they are implementing editorial control as well. It's a monopoly of Orthodoxy now. Which pleases Leftist ideologues such as yourself because your message becomes the only "correct" message.
Yet the vast majority of web users know of the existence of bing (and any of the other half dozen search engines). There are ZERO barriers to any person going to their browser and typing "Bing.com" into their address bar and accessing their services. The fact they don't is a market choice. This isn't like ATT controlling the local telephone line into your home (and charging exorbitant prices). Folks still have choice, they just choose the competitors service.
If you want to see what a true internet monopoly looks like see the People Republic of China or North Korea where real information and content is controlled by the government. That's not what's happening here.
This post was edited on 6/24/20 at 10:07 am
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:04 am to Lsupimp
quote:
An 88 percent market share in search advertising is by definition a monopoly.
No its not
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:04 am to Lsupimp
quote:
An 88 percent market share in search advertising is by definition a monopoly.
A firm having monopoly power is not illegal.
quote:
There is a barrier to free market entry.
Not one created by illegal practices by Google.
From the FTC:
quote:
Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:08 am to Lsupimp
quote:
There is a barrier to free market entry.
call up the silent majority and tell them you're starting a new platform... surely they will open their checkbooks to right this situation.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:09 am to goofball
My YouTube channel got axed. It was nothing but original World War II related radio broadcasts from 1932-45. They killed it because there was some Hitler broadcasts on there. It could have been a valuable history resource but nope, history is offensive.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:10 am to Lonnie Utah
You made my point for me. An 88% ad revenue monopoly IS a barrier to entry. There can be no competition, because it funnels ALL capital to one corporate behemoth.
Now let’s add the obvious point that said corporate behemoth begins to scrub opposition viewpoints. Let’s add the obvious point that said corporate behemoth begins to enforce a cultural and political orthodoxy and demonetize the opposition.
Now you have our ugly current reality- A historically powerful Tech Oligarchy that becomes the unelected gatekeeper of public opinion. It decides who gets priority and who gets exiled to the wilderness. It has de facto platform AND editorial control.
Now let’s add the obvious point that said corporate behemoth begins to scrub opposition viewpoints. Let’s add the obvious point that said corporate behemoth begins to enforce a cultural and political orthodoxy and demonetize the opposition.
Now you have our ugly current reality- A historically powerful Tech Oligarchy that becomes the unelected gatekeeper of public opinion. It decides who gets priority and who gets exiled to the wilderness. It has de facto platform AND editorial control.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:11 am to TheFonz
quote:
My YouTube channel got axed.
Did you appeal the decision? There's a possibility it was done by a bot/algorithm and isn't actually against the community standards, but happened hit on all of the right things to be auto-flagged.
ETA: If you didn't bother to contact them about it, you just want to be upset.
This post was edited on 6/24/20 at 10:20 am
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News