I have to agree with arcwelder76. Google/YouTube/Facebook are still trying to find equilibrium.

Competitiors and potential competitors are aware and want these companies to do the heavy lifting (monetization models, government oversight, etc.) before challenging internet royalty.


I don't view Google/YouTube as a bastion of left-wing propoganda. I perceive a bunch of fallible human beings eager to cash in on their investment. Sure, they have their bias. Maybe that's one of of their achille's heels.


I have to admit that I'm bitter about losing my monetization status. All $100.00 per year of it. Pewdiepie scrogged the rest of us with his inappropriate content.

I am actually surprised how successful so many of these "talking head" channels are. I'm also slightly aghast at the "Trending" videos. I find it difficult to believe people are so interested in that drivel.

My channel is kind of my legacy. Thousands or million of other people like me are posting their experiences and enabling others to benefit. That's REAL content.

If a better platform arrives, you bet your sweet bippee I'll be shutting down my YouTube channel and moving.

I strongly disagree with YouTube but it is their website so they can do what they please.

Some of you people need an education in private property, what it means, what it applies to, and what it entails.

I’d like to see more competition. However if we are going to start dismantling something that has grown ridiculously large and out of proportion to what it should be, I’d think our efforts would be far better spent on shrinking the Federal Government than any company.

Related information.

Jack Dorsey, owner of Twitter, started kicking conservatives off of Twitter.

Andrew Torba created Gab where free speech is promoted.

I think that someone will come along and create a free market solution to YouTube.

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
I strongly disagree with YouTube but it is their website so they can do what they please.

Some of you people need an education in private property, what it means, what it applies to, and what it entails.

Despite the fact that there are other video platforms out there, such as Vimeo, don't you think that Youtube- with support from its monster-sized owner Google- constitutes a de facto monopoly?

quote:

A law would have to be very carefully crafted to make a distinction between Youtube and Sigforum, do you think that would happen? I don't.

You said, " A law would have to be very carefully crafted to make a distinction between Youtube and Sigforum, do you think that would happen? I don't."

That sounds like fear to me.

We make distinctions between companies with 50 or more employees, for instance.

We are talking about a handful of companies who have lied to and seriously misled the public to build their platforms.

We have been saying there is a need for competition for years. No significant competitors have emerged.

The strength and pervasiveness of a few speech platforms protecting themselves behind safe harbor laws, for instance, to make huge sums while having lied to sucker people into supposedly a neutral public site to only then hide behind propriety means to hinder competition and maintain a grand status warrants attention.

That needs, in my view, to be pierced to give competitors a meaningful chance to truly compete.

Fear is entirely your word, not mine. I believe I've explained adequately that What I'm talking about isn't fear. Kindly stop foisting it onto what I'm trying to say.

Skepticism of more law or regulation, and mistrust of the government to "solve" something, is not unreasonable. If history is any measure.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

A law would have to be very carefully crafted to make a distinction between Youtube and Sigforum, do you think that would happen? I don't.

You said, " A law would have to be very carefully crafted to make a distinction between Youtube and Sigforum, do you think that would happen? I don't."

That sounds like fear to me.

We make distinctions between companies with 50 or more employees, for instance.

We are talking about a handful of companies who have lied to and seriously misled the public to build their platforms.

We have been saying there is a need for competition for years. No significant competitors have emerged.

The strength and pervasiveness of a few speech platforms protecting themselves behind safe harbor laws, for instance, to make huge sums while having lied to sucker people into supposedly a neutral public site to only then hide behind propriety means to hinder competition and maintain a grand status warrants attention.

That needs, in my view, to be pierced to give competitors a meaningful chance to truly compete.

While I am pretty sure there are some people/companies taking advantage of some situations, I don't care to take the easy route and assume. I'd really be interested to know EXACTLY how much and who has struck it rich with Google/YouTube. I wonder whether we'd be surprised. Not that it's any of my/our business but inquiring minds want to know.

More government oversight will never be the answer, however.

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
Related information.

Jack Dorsey, owner of Twitter, started kicking conservatives off of Twitter.

Andrew Torba created Gab where free speech is promoted.

I think that someone will come along and create a free market solution to YouTube.

I've mentioned this twice in the thread already, but Google and Apple conspired with Twitter to not allow GAB in their app stores... GAB was not able to get a foot hold because you can't add it to your phone.

This is the problem. The tech companies are engaging in anti-competitive practices and colluding to keep their grasp on the internet. A grasp the government fully provided for them.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
I strongly disagree with YouTube but it is their website so they can do what they please.

Some of you people need an education in private property, what it means, what it applies to, and what it entails.

Despite the fact that there are other video platforms out there, such as Vimeo, don't you think that Youtube- with support from its monster-sized owner Google- constitutes a de facto monopoly?

From Investopedia - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp

quote:

Why Are Monopolies Illegal?
A monopoly is characterized by the absence of competition, which can lead to high costs for consumers, inferior products and services, and corrupt behavior. A company that dominates a business sector or industry can use that dominance to its advantage, and at the expense of others. It can create artificial scarcities, fix prices and otherwise circumvent natural laws of supply and demand. It can impede new entrants into the field, discriminate and inhibit experimentation or new product development, while the public — robbed of the recourse of using a competitor — is at its mercy. A monopolized market often becomes an unequal, and even inefficient, one.

Yes, I suppose we could say that YouTube is a de facto monopoly. They certainly show corrupt behavior and in my own experience I only use YouTube when I'm looking for video and that is due to the absence of competition. YouTube doesn't cost me anything monetarily, it costs me time when they present advertising, and I could stop using it altogether to protest their censorship of programming I support.

I am so hesitant to get the Feds involved in anything though.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
Related information.

Jack Dorsey, owner of Twitter, started kicking conservatives off of Twitter.

Andrew Torba created Gab where free speech is promoted.

I think that someone will come along and create a free market solution to YouTube.

I've mentioned this twice in the thread already, but Google and Apple conspired with Twitter to not allow GAB in their app stores... GAB was not able to get a foot hold because you can't add it to your phone.

This is the problem. The tech companies are engaging in anti-competitive practices and colluding to keep their grasp on the internet. A grasp the government fully provided for them.

Yes I saw those posts when I re-read those parts of the thread. My primary interest was private property when I opened the thread.

I'm still reading about the government's role in all this.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Fear is entirely your word, not mine. I believe I've explained adequately that What I'm talking about isn't fear. Kindly stop foisting it onto what I'm trying to say.

Skepticism of more law or regulation, and mistrust of the government to "solve" something, is not unreasonable. If history is any measure.

Still sounds like plain fear to me.


I have given my 2 cents about the issue.

Others are free to ignore or consider our disparate ideas about the matter.

I'll leave my comments there.

I am not after you but the idea.

Marxists touted the idea that capitalism would fail because it would not, as a philosophy, allow intervention when the concentration of power became overwhelmimgly anti-competitive.

We, as a country, have proven them wrong time and again and capitalism has survived.

Sometimes disciplined government intervention has proven useful.

quote:

Originally posted by BuckRogers2000:
More government oversight will never be the answer, however.

I respect your tautology and philosophical opinion.

I just don't agree.

Again, I refer people to a concise statement of just some of our history HERE.

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
I strongly disagree with YouTube but it is their website so they can do what they please.

Some of you people need an education in private property, what it means, what it applies to, and what it entails.

Breaking monetization contracts due to unpublished standards and rules is nothing but shitbaggery.

They literally removed my monetization because I couldn't keep a certain number of followers watching a certain number of hours a month, however I am STILL required to show ads now, but anyone and everyone can STEAL my content for ad revenue with zero consequences as I have to pay an attorney to pursue the thieves.

Youtube needs to see just how shitty the FCC and IRS can be.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
I strongly disagree with YouTube but it is their website so they can do what they please.

Some of you people need an education in private property, what it means, what it applies to, and what it entails.

Breaking monetization contracts due to unpublished standards and rules is nothing but shitbaggery.

They literally removed my monetization because I couldn't keep a certain number of followers watching a certain number of hours a month, however I am STILL required to show ads now, but anyone and everyone can STEAL my content for ad revenue with zero consequences as I have to pay an attorney to pursue the thieves.

Youtube needs to see just how shitty the FCC and IRS can be.

Did you watch the videos? Youtube manually approved his videos for monetization and then gave him strikes on those same videos.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
One of the people swept up in the latest YouTube purge has spoken up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKj1CVN9Qc

Just more scary stuff happening in this world as all of our avenues of speech are slowly being controlled by corporations who bend the knee to the leftists.

Well youtube has now censored this video, it is no longer available.

Wow!

Someone at Youtube seriously has it out for this kid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z9vf0xjOfs

Here's a reupload.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Fear is entirely your word, not mine. I believe I've explained adequately that What I'm talking about isn't fear. Kindly stop foisting it onto what I'm trying to say.

Skepticism of more law or regulation, and mistrust of the government to "solve" something, is not unreasonable. If history is any measure.

Still sounds like plain fear to me.


I have given my 2 cents about the issue.

Others are free to ignore or consider our disparate ideas about the matter.

I'll leave my comments there.

I am not after you but the idea.

Marxists touted the idea that capitalism would fail because it would not, as a philosophy, allow intervention when the concentration of power became overwhelmimgly anti-competitive.

We, as a country, have proven them wrong time and again and capitalism has survived.

Sometimes disciplined government intervention has proven useful.

If you aren't after me, it would be great if you'd listen to what I'm saying and stop putting the word fear into what I'm trying to say. If you're after the idea, and trying to convince me of another, you've chosen a poor tactic.

I have to agree with Arc. As Reagan said, Government is not the solution to the problem, Government is the problem!

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Fear is entirely your word, not mine. I believe I've explained adequately that What I'm talking about isn't fear. Kindly stop foisting it onto what I'm trying to say.

Skepticism of more law or regulation, and mistrust of the government to "solve" something, is not unreasonable. If history is any measure.

Still sounds like plain fear to me.


I have given my 2 cents about the issue.

Others are free to ignore or consider our disparate ideas about the matter.

I'll leave my comments there.

I am not after you but the idea.

Marxists touted the idea that capitalism would fail because it would not, as a philosophy, allow intervention when the concentration of power became overwhelmimgly anti-competitive.

We, as a country, have proven them wrong time and again and capitalism has survived.

Sometimes disciplined government intervention has proven useful.

If you aren't after me, it would be great if you'd listen to what I'm saying and stop putting the word fear into what I'm trying to say. If you're after the idea, and trying to convince me of another, you've chosen a poor tactic.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Your mind is made up philosophically.

Your idea seems to me to be borne of fear.

That is my impression of the idea.

Fear government. For the benefit of the open minded I posted. Sigmonkey said to heed your idea and I said and say, "no."

There are some who are ardent about philosophically fearing government. Some are impossibly entrenched in those ideas and some are not.

I believe those of an open or different opinion should be able to explore ideas other than fear.

You may wish to recast the word "fear" to ambiguate it with your idea, "skepticism," but it still partakes of fear to me.

Fear the government is the thrust of your posts. I don't think that fear is always warranted.

Ronald Reagan talked of skepticism of government help then proceeded to use the federal government to help all kinds of citizens.

Abstract philosophies or bumper-sticker phrases do not always comport with actual needs and good policy-making, to me.

Your syllogism seems, like another poster, to be:
All government intervention is bad.
This partakes of government intervention.
Therefore. this is bad.
All A is B.
C is A.
Therefore, all C is B.

A perfect, unassailable syllogism. It's perfect logic but factually wrong in its major premise.

Again, this is my criticism of the idea.