joew42k
Productive debates are more likely to happen in places with 1. Moderation and 2. an invested community. That's what makes HN successful, in my opinion.
But we can't turn every comment section into HN. Moderation is expensive. And some sites aren't niche enough to foster a sense of community.
So we should probably remove most comment sections.
News sites are particularly bad. Anyone can just stop by, leave their shitty opinion, and walk away.
And you aren't refuting what I said. How is this any different than a book publisher deciding what books to publish? Are you saying youtube and other websites should be forced to host content they don't agree with? Should HN be held to the same rules? How would that work?
1a. Youtube has other expenses besides hard drives. Bandwith. Server infrastructure. Employee salaries. To name a few.
2. It's not censorship. It's editorial judgement. Are you saying websites should be forced to host opinions they don't agree with? There is no "fairness doctrine" for sites like youtube.
Youtube only differs from other websites in scale. They are moderating content as we see fit. We can disagree with their reasoning behind moderation. But it's silly to act like they didn't have this right all along
(And that's what I see in this comment section. Comments like "why should youtube say what I can and can't watch?" I'm pointing out that those arguments are a dead end.)
Why is such a big chunk of our culture is hosted by a private company?
It's not. Private companies can attempt to silence people.
But Youtube isn't preventing the creators from hosting content elsewhere. They aren't hitting them with a slapp lawsuit. They aren't colluding with other websites to ban these videos.
Youtube is just saying "host these somewhere else." How is that different from a publishing company choosing not to publish a book?
Well it is a little different. For the reason I mentioned in my post. Because youtube is the only game in town.
> I'm not confident breaking up the google 'monopoly' would actually solve this problem.
The problem, in my eyes, is that youtube can ban you, and there is no alternative place to host your videos with the same level of exposure. Having a competitive market place would solve this problem, and give video hosting sites an incentive to treat creators fairly.
2. They have a commercial reason to cancel these videos. Maybe they think the use of these drugs is risky, and gives their website an unsavory reputation. That hurts their brand (and potentially their bottom line). This is not unlike a TV show canceling a successful show when it's star actor becomes embroiled in controversy.
So why is youtube any different?
TV stations decide what shows they want to air, and which ones they don't. And nobody calls it censorship. Youtube feels like public infrastructure. But legally, it's no different than a TV station deciding to cancel a show.
I wouldn't put covers in the videos at all. You're right, that's a legal minefield. Just use original music that you have the rights to.
This is not censorship in the way we have traditionally understood. It only feels like it because Youtube is where the biggest audience is. It's the same whenever Facebook penalizes a post in the timeline, or whenever Google hides content from the search results. They feel like a the phone company or the post office - neutral platforms where people expect the right to free speech. In reality, they are publishers that exercise editorial discretion.
If we had focused on building decentralized platforms with interoperability and open standards, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, you all wanted to make money. (Understandable)
My proposal - the government should recognize that network effects produce defacto monopolies, and use existing anti-trust law to break up these behemoth platforms, or force regulation on them.
In the mean time, I'll shout "i told you so" from my lonely, facebookless, linux-powered compound.
We practically used to, until cars encouraged development to spread out.
> You have to completely rethink density and development patterns to get to a point where most origins and destinations are near stations.
In other words, go back to what the world was like before cars.
> Public transit has a wickedly hard problem to solve
But not impossible. European cities seem to have a less difficult time.
It's hard to find tech industry criticism that's reasoned and fair. I was very disappointed when I read some of Jaron Lanier's books, for instance, because I thought some of his arguments were too hypothetical / abstract. Evgeny Morowzov's books had better arguments, but the tone was so cynical, and he spends little time proposing solutions. Mark Hurst's techtonic show spends time looking at the good and bad of technology, and I'm constantly having my views challenged.