Competition possibly coming soon for YouTube

[LD48750]

I wish him luck, but he's very late to the party. Tough to compete with Google...

I'm so old I remember time WITHOUT Google or YouTube.

Even before Yahoo was the biggest & best search engine on the internet.

****... I even remember before cable TV.

The point is... It can happen. If enough people think it is a better service or more honest, it will survive.

 

[Oldpath05]

I disagree. These are companys... owned by citizens. They should be ran however they choose to run.

I don't LIKE IT AT ALL... but I don't want them coming to me and telling me I have to do business how THEY want me to either.

The real issue is competition. We need competition and support of competition. If its not there, we need to support those trying to get it there. Of all the things on the internet, I think the one I use the most is YouTube. I use it to learn almost everything I need... or learn how NOT to do something, which is equally important. I don't like that they take sides against alternatives, but on the other hand, there is a lot of bogus crap out there, that if spread, would only cause people harm. Not allowing it on their website is definitely within their rights.

I support YouTube's Right to allow the content they choose. I don't LIKE alot of how they implement it... but neither do I like alot of things that are said in the paper, TV, etc. But I support their Right to say it.

Ok now it's my turn to disagree. The 1st amen should take president in a public forum as stated (Public Square) meaning if you start a youtube No.2, that is a Public Square as in or newspaper business, NPs should not have the right to stop the 1st amen same as a new station, that's the business there in. But I also believe that people do not have 1st and sec amen right coming to your home or your private none information public business like your tractor dealership, sawmills, restaurants, car dealership, garage...........if you so choose. Maybe whats needed is a group of justices and call them the supreme court and let them decide where the 1st amen starts and stops.

I can agree that youtube competition is what's really needed, once upon a time Ford was top dog, now not so much.

 

[vvanders]

I'm so old I remember time WITHOUT Google or YouTube.

Even before Yahoo was the biggest & best search engine on the internet.

****... I even remember before cable TV.

The point is... It can happen. If enough people think it is a better service or more honest, it will survive.

If you'd said that 5 years ago I'd agree, these days with Net Neutrality being repealed and the massive deals that are struck on the backend for peering I'm not sure these days I'd be so sure.

Look at what happened with Instagram and WhatsApp. Acquired at 1B and 19B respectively, I think any upstart to YouTube would see similar offers and any VC/investors would not let founders walk away from a deal like that.

Heck one of the WhatsApp founds just walked from the acquisition deal and left 1B(yes, billion) on the table since he wasn't happy with how Facebook was running it(WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum is leaving Facebook after clashing over data privacy - The Verge). Once you've sold though any control goes out the window.

 

[Dadnatron]

Ok now it's my turn to disagree. The 1st amen should take president in a public forum as stated (Public Square) meaning if you start a youtube No.2, that is a Public Square as in or newspaper business, NPs should not have the right to stop the 1st amen same as a new station, that's the business there in. But I also believe that people do not have 1st and sec amen right coming to your home or your private none information public business like your tractor dealership, sawmills, restaurants, car dealership, garage...........if you so choose. Maybe whats needed is a group of justices and call them the supreme court and let them decide where the 1st amen starts and stops.

I can agree that youtube competition is what's really needed, once upon a time Ford was top dog, now not so much.

This is not a 1st Amendment issue. Every person has the Right to say what they feel. However, every person does not have the Right to post it on a PRIVATE company's website. Just because they have a corner on the market at this point, does not mean they give up ownership or the RIGHT to choose how they run their business. You mispercieve YouTube as a 'public forum'. It is NOT. In order to post, you must make an account. In order to make the account, you must agree to the rules therein.

YouTube OWNS those rules as well as the servers and system upon which those videos are posted. Their refusal to post something you desire does not preclude you from posting it elsewhere or starting a competing business. It simply means that 'their standards' are not met by your post and therefore you have no Right to force them to post your video. Otherwise, child ****, snuf videos, etc could be forced right along with whatever YOU believe is OK.

The 1st Amendment gives you the Right to say what you choose without Government intervention. It does NOT give you the Right to force other private individuals nor companies to do your bidding.

This does not mean I agree with their choice to block a lot of 'opposition' videos, be those gun, religion, or politically related. It just means I agree that they have the Right to do so. Not that it IS right or good.

 

[N80]

Dadnatron, I think you are partially correct but not completely correct. In other words, there are certain forms of discrimination that would get YouTube in trouble. I am like you in that I agree that as a private organization they should be allowed to post what they want and delete what they want. It is not that simple. For instance, they would not be legally able to censor material just because it was posted by gay people or black people or fill-in-the-blank people. Add religion and politics to that scenario and it gets extremely complicated. EXTREMELY. Reference the case of the baker who would not make a wedding cake for two men getting married. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and even they did not provide a great deal of clarity on the matter.

So YouTube has to tread lightly. Further, in some recent cases they are banning material that their user agreement indicates should be allowed as in the Prager U case. It is my understanding that that case was thrown out, but I'm guessing it was thrown out by a judge in the NW U.S. that tends to follow the 9th Circuit which is extremely liberal and often makes judgements that fail to stand on further appeal in matters such as these. But that's just a guess.

There is also a bigger issue here. When a corporation so dominates a given spectrum of daily life they open themselves up to calls for regulation beyond that which might be reasonable for an individual. Monopoly law is an example. Utilities is another. I think this is going to be a constitutional show down with huge implications in the near future. And the driving force behind it is corporate abuse.

However, I think the biggest issue is that U.S. consumers are pathetic. We rarely ever vote with our wallets. We are sheep-like in almost every fashion. I'm including myself. The internet has helped a lot with the ability to review stuff. But even that is now watered down. There are companies that pad reviews. I include myself as a well-fed sheep-like consumer. But, I recently dropped FaceBook and never use it. If we all did this in droves, even for short periods, we could have an impact. We rarely do.

 

[Industrial Toys]

I came across a couple hundred 33 rpm records that I have, on the weekend. Not sure what to do with them. I mostly bought them at thrift stores after CDs came of age having been too cheap or poor to buy them in their day. But Youtube has pretty much made them obsolete. There was a time of slow speed Internet when I tried to save favourite music, but now it's all streaming.

I'm still thinking the lights will go out for good some day! Listening to my old records with the Diesel Generator running may be the last thing I ever do, when the marauding gangs find me.

 

[Dadnatron]

N80, I would agree with you if YouTube was banning or censoring content based upon WHO is posting it. However, that isn't what they are doing. They are censoring it based upon 2 things basically.

1. Content of the specific video. We can go on and on about what is 'good/bad' to be censored, but that is irrelevant because it is up to the company to determine what they wish to allow on their website. It is no different than a 'Conservative' forum/website/whatever censoring/deleting Far Left/LGBT/you name it content from their website. What if the Catholic Church was required to post and maintain Satanic content? Etc. They are NOT banning based upon WHO posted, but rather WHAT was posted.

2. They are censoring or rather 'demonitizing' content based upon feedback from sponsors/advertisers. People don't want their products to be associated with certain videos and until YouTube comes up with a way to categorize those ads in a better fashion, they are simply removing ads and demonitizing the video. If they were smarter, whey would figure out categories which WANTED to advertise on a 'gun channel' rather than remove all ads from that channel. However, they have taken a different stance.

The Prager U crap is just that... crap. Censoring a different opinion. However, it is legal given it is a privately owned company. Again, I think they are missing the boat. But websites MUST be allowed to control their own content. Otherwise, Rightwacko.com or whatever, will be forced to provide service for Leftwacko content or vice versa.

Competition not legislation is key. NO ONE WINS when .gov becomes the arbiter.

 

[N80]

"Competition not legislation is key. NO ONE WINS when .gov becomes the arbiter."

I agree with this completely. And I'd like to agree with your other comments. I agree that this is how it _should_ be. In the current political climate it is not. While you may hope for it to be the case, all of this is very fluid and there are far more considerations at hand than what is private and what is not, especially when what is private is also corporate. If things were as you say there never would have been a Supreme Court case, or any other case, in regard to who bakes a cake for whom.

As to Prager U stuff being "crap", not only is that irrelevant since the vast majority of what is on YouTube is crap, but it is also not supportable. I have viewed and fact checked quite a few of their videos. I find most of their opinions, but not all, well reasoned and as factually accurate as any other media source these days. And again, YouTube has claimed they remove their content because it does not meet their content agreement not because it has anything to do with sales, advertisers or popularity. The real legal problem that YouTube has is that the Prager U content does not actually conflict with their content agreement.

 

[Dadnatron]

As to Prager U stuff being "crap", not only is that irrelevant since the vast majority of what is on YouTube is crap, but it is also not supportable. I have viewed and fact checked quite a few of their videos. I find most of their opinions, but not all, well reasoned and as factually accurate as any other media source these days. And again, YouTube has claimed they remove their content because it does not meet their content agreement not because it has anything to do with sales, advertisers or popularity. The real legal problem that YouTube has is that the Prager U content does not actually conflict with their content agreement.

I was unclear on my meaning. I don't disagree with Prager U. I meant the censoring of Prager U was CRAP. But that is because YouTube believes 'a lot' of Prager U material is 'inflammatory', mainly based upon its work about Israel/Palastine. I believe YouTube should allow it to be posted. I think most things should be allowed. But that is not their belief, and they own the site.

And the SCOTUS case about the baker only BOLSTERS my point. It is the Right of the individual/business to do what he/it desires in this regard.

 

[ch1ch2]

I disagree. These are companys... owned by citizens. They should be ran however they choose to run.

I don't LIKE IT AT ALL... but I don't want them coming to me and telling me I have to do business how THEY want me to either.

The real issue is competition. We need competition and support of competition. If its not there, we need to support those trying to get it there. Of all the things on the internet, I think the one I use the most is YouTube. I use it to learn almost everything I need... or learn how NOT to do something, which is equally important. I don't like that they take sides against alternatives, but on the other hand, there is a lot of bogus crap out there, that if spread, would only cause people harm. Not allowing it on their website is definitely within their rights.

I support YouTube's Right to allow the content they choose. I don't LIKE alot of how they implement it... but neither do I like alot of things that are said in the paper, TV, etc. But I support their Right to say it.

I disagree with you.
First let me say what you said is true, but you leave out the fact the when a company takes money from the government they can no longer discriminate.