Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 2:30 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:We didn't have speed limits on roads until cars came along.


Interesting point.

Now, why doesn't the government forbid the manufacture of vehicles capable of going more than 75 mph?

In fact, why not make sure that all vehicles cannot exceed the posted speed limit? Wouldn't that be "highway neutrality?"

Why shouldn't the government incentivize/encourage competition?
Hmm. because "some regulation" does not mean "complete regulation".

Of course, some governments do mandate speed/rev limiters on vehicles like so that (for example) trucks are kept below their limits.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 2:39 pm

bbauska
I posted a link to something that should be restricted, and it is open content.


If, in your opinion it should be restricted, flag it.

bbauska
Should YouTube be restricting some videos and not others based upon political ideology?


According to their advertisers, yes...

This past March, AT&T, Verizon, and Johnson & Johnson—three of the biggest advertisers in the U.S.—along with 250 other brands pulled “hundreds of millions of dollars in business” over concerns that YouTube was not doing enough to police “offensive and extremist content.”
Phillip Schindler, Google’s Chief Business Officer, responded immediately by ensuring ad-buyers will have more control over which videos are paired with their advertisements:
[W]e’ve been conducting an extensive review of our advertising policies and tools, and why we made a public commitment last week to put in place changes that would give brands more control over where their ads appear.


The problem is that advertisers don't want to associate with Prager's videos I guess. I can understand why I guess. Though there does seem to be a lot worse getting through their filters.

From YouTube’s perspective, this situation is lose-lose. If the company tightens its ad-pool algorithms to exclude potentially controversial videos in order to appease the interests of certain advertisers, content creators lose out on revenue and the company is accused of “economically censoring” free speech. If it refuses to change its algorithms, though, advertisers might walk away
.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 2:46 pm

Fate
How is Hulu, a service you pay for, comparable to YouTube?

They are both delivered exclusively by Internet. And compete for eyeballs .

Similarly Cable channels compete with over the air television. The first is only available if paid for. the second is free and supported solely by advertising.
And they both compete for eyeballs.
As a free service, You tube and over the air television networks must be more responsive to advertisers demands. They can't afford to alienate any of them. That's apparently the major motivation for You Tube setting up filters...
Cable Channels and Hulu are supported primarily by subscription revenue and can air potentially more controversial material.
It must be that Pragers content is considered too controversial for major You Tube advertisers..
Free enterprise has unintended consequences at times.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 2:50 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
How is Hulu, a service you pay for, comparable to YouTube?

They are both delivered exclusively by Internet. And compete for eyeballs .

Similarly Cable channels compete with over the air television. The first is only available if paid for. the second is free and supported solely by advertising.
And they both compete for eyeballs.


In other words, they don't really compete with each other and yours was a specious comparison.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10967
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 3:12 pm

Fate
In other words, they don't really compete with each other and yours was a specious comparison


You need to take an introductory course in media at a community college.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 3:41 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
In other words, they don't really compete with each other and yours was a specious comparison


You need to take an introductory course in media at a community college.


Is that where I'd find you?

No one would take that comparison seriously. It's like saying HBO and local access TV are similar because they both compete for eyeballs.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jan 2018, 3:58 pm

RickyP,
I CAN flag it. That is my prerogative. However, should YouTube be allowed to "PRE-FILTER" my results, based upon business political or personal views. You continue to dance around without answering.

Is YouTube treating the two videos I linked earlier differently in the restricted settings they apply to them?

I don't care about advertisers, other end user political views or anything. I want your opinion. Be a dear, and try to stand up for your own opinion.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 3:58 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
rickyp wrote:Fate
In other words, they don't really compete with each other and yours was a specious comparison


You need to take an introductory course in media at a community college.


Is that where I'd find you?

No one would take that comparison seriously. It's like saying HBO and local access TV are similar because they both compete for eyeballs.
They are competitors though, are they not?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 5:40 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
rickyp wrote:Fate
In other words, they don't really compete with each other and yours was a specious comparison


You need to take an introductory course in media at a community college.


Is that where I'd find you?

No one would take that comparison seriously. It's like saying HBO and local access TV are similar because they both compete for eyeballs.
They are competitors though, are they not?


Sure, like Haiti and Norway are competitors.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 5:06 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
rickyp wrote:Fate
In other words, they don't really compete with each other and yours was a specious comparison


You need to take an introductory course in media at a community college.


Is that where I'd find you?

No one would take that comparison seriously. It's like saying HBO and local access TV are similar because they both compete for eyeballs.
They are competitors though, are they not?


Sure, like Haiti and Norway are competitors.

Point is, if YouTube is a monopoly (which is isn't, as you conveniently only picked one of the list provided to argue the point), then what does that mean? Was it created as one by anything other than the interaction of the market choosing the best provider? Do you want to see government intervention (you were the one suggesting it be designated a "utility")?

The conservative, free market, capitalist "solution" to YouTube is to create a better alternative.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 6:13 am

danivon wrote:The conservative, free market, capitalist "solution" to YouTube is to create a better alternative.


Sure, but when a business discriminates, the government often gets involved. That is the case here.

I didn't "conveniently" pick YouTube. He listed it and several, far less significant, companies.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 25 Jan 2018, 8:45 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:The conservative, free market, capitalist "solution" to YouTube is to create a better alternative.


Sure, but when a business discriminates, the government often gets involved. That is the case here.
Is it? That is the argument, but let's see what a court says.

I didn't "conveniently" pick YouTube. He listed it and several, far less significant, companies.

You picked Hulu. The list was "Vimeo, Metacafe, Hulu , Vevo, Yahoo Screen, Daily Motion, Veoh, Flickr and Break all have substantial traffic."

And you were arguing monopoly, which is a DIFFERENT argument to discrimination.