> You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them.
Why not? We place some pretty serious obligations on a few industries - one example is electricity providers of last resort.
Why not? We place some pretty serious obligations on a few industries - one example is electricity providers of last resort.
Electricity is deemed a common utility and a regulated, granted natural monopoly - one considered a necessary requirement for all citizens and organizations.
Video streaming is not a monopoly, and no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace change the fact that there are a number easily accessible competitors.
It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. There were plenty of competitors back then, just as now, and yet the Sherman Antitrust Act happened.
The network power of these organizations makes them monopolies even aside from market share. In Sherman era anti-trust, "Build your own rail network" would not have flown as an argument, because it was clear that coercive actions to force people into a different network were problematic.
The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. You can read the Sherman Act, court opinions during that time, and the argument of it removing centralization of power. The "predatory pricing" argument is a recent invention, ironically created with right-wing judicial activism, and neither historical or textual in nature.
Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity make it a monopoly. Standard oil was the only accessible supplier in the market in many places. The video streaming and hosting market has many easily accessible suppliers wherever there is internet access.
>The government can regulate monopolies for any reason.
Whether or not the government can regulate a monopoly is not being debated here. Nobody is talking about that straw man.
This isn't a problem if there are dozens of video hosting services or search engines that all have equal market share, but there aren't.
Private companies are free to curate their content as they see fit and you can choose to consume it or not.
These independent content creators and journalists can all self host.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that every view gets maximum amplification on private networks. It means that the government won’t take steps to repress the speech, which they aren’t.
Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace make it a monopoly. You are not entitled to being discovered in competitive markets, and forcing suppliers to host your content is anti-competitive.
TikTok is still a competitor. Facebook, Vimeo, Reddit, Twitch, etc. all popular, easily accessible competitors as well.
Microsoft, Apple, Spotify, Netflix, etc. + VC money, all have the money and means to compete directly with YouTube if they choose.
The market for “I want to watch Trump claim he stole the election without a disclaimer in the description” might not be that huge. As others have pointed out, creating news about election misinformation is still no problem on YT provided it’s explained as misinformation and not just provided without context.
Also, these content providers can self-host their video content and promote their content as they see fit.
You have to decide if bookmarking the sites of your favorite content providers is a better option than accepting YT’s content guidelines.
But you don’t get to demand that YT host whatever content suits your views. They can curate their platform as they see fit and you can consume it or not as you see fit.
Or you could call your congress people and ask them to increase funding for PBS or NPR or whatever. Or start a tax funded service.
Or start your own service. I’m sure you’ll welcome everyone’s suggestions on how to run it.
Or is it that you want someone else to run it, you don’t want to pay anything for it, don’t want to pay taxes for it, but you do want a say in how it’s run?
(Not you personally but y’all)
That said, I hate to see conservative or any other opinions censored, and this is what YouTube is doing, because if we give up on true free speech then I think that bodes ill for our society long term.