|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 7, 2018 0:15:28 GMT
That's the thing though. In the U.S there's been talks that social media sites might be forced to become more politically neutral, or the legislators will make them responsible for all content that's uploaded on their platforms. Which means that the platforms themselves get liable for prosecution for illegal content being uploaded by it's users. Meaning, right now they aren't responsible but are considered "messengers". Yet they take it upon themselves to police content anyway, for no reason. And they even do it according to standards and rules that they keep secret from content creators, so it's impossible to know when you're doing something wrong. I would love to see a situation where content carriers are forced to remain politically neutral. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 7, 2018 12:27:58 GMT
That's the thing though. In the U.S there's been talks that social media sites might be forced to become more politically neutral, or the legislators will make them responsible for all content that's uploaded on their platforms. Which means that the platforms themselves get liable for prosecution for illegal content being uploaded by it's users. Meaning, right now they aren't responsible but are considered "messengers". Yet they take it upon themselves to police content anyway, for no reason. And they even do it according to standards and rules that they keep secret from content creators, so it's impossible to know when you're doing something wrong. I would love to see a situation where content carriers are forced to remain politically neutral. As would I. I also like the proposed ideas of nationalising facebook, youtube and google as public utilities since they carry de facto monopolies. Competition and free market is all fair and grand. But when certain entities gain monopolies then the arguments about competition and free market doesn't really hold water anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 7, 2018 12:40:59 GMT
As would I. I also like the proposed ideas of nationalising facebook, youtube and google as public utilities since they carry de facto monopolies. Competition and free market is all fair and grand. But when certain entities gain monopolies then the arguments about competition and free market doesn't really hold water anymore. Nationalising internet companies would not be paractical or possible. Firstly to do so would make them aligned to the country that Nationalised them's political ideology. Which would alienate many other countries. It would also make Youtube an inherantly political platform guided by the policies of the party in power, which would kill the platform. They are also global companies, they can just move abroad. Then you lose the income and taxes of some massive companies. What would you do in response, block them? That is why I like the idea of them not being liable if they remain neutral but being liable if they become biased. That is a system that would force any media outlet to declare bias or work to maintain an unbiased platform. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 7, 2018 12:51:21 GMT
What would you do in response, block them? It worked for China vs Google didn't it? China instructed Google that if they did not censor the search results of the Tianmen Square Massacre of 1989 from Chinese citizens, then China would block Google entirely. Google realizing that having your services blocked entirely in China would mean a huge financial loss for them, since the Chinese economy is quite strong and something they could profit from unconditionally complied to the demands of the Chinese government. Now if the U.S did the same thing. It wouldn't matter how much Google or Youtube tried to move to different countries. If the U.S threaten to block Google and Youtube entirely, then the Google stock would plummet and probably lead the company to financial ruin, since a search engine completely closed off from the american market is pretty worthless. Do note: I'm not necessarily saying that what China did was right, or that Google did the right thing by complying. But you raised the issue about if it would "work" or not. And I just demonstrate that it could work, regardless of the ethics or morals behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 7, 2018 15:50:58 GMT
It worked for China vs Google didn't it? China instructed Google that if they did not censor the search results of the Tianmen Square Massacre of 1989 from Chinese citizens, then China would block Google entirely. Google realizing that having your services blocked entirely in China would mean a huge financial loss for them, since the Chinese economy is quite strong and something they could profit from unconditionally complied to the demands of the Chinese government. Now if the U.S did the same thing. It wouldn't matter how much Google or Youtube tried to move to different countries. If the U.S threaten to block Google and Youtube entirely, then the Google stock would plummet and probably lead the company to financial ruin, since a search engine completely closed off from the american market is pretty worthless. Do note: I'm not necessarily saying that what China did was right, or that Google did the right thing by complying. But you raised the issue about if it would "work" or not. And I just demonstrate that it could work, regardless of the ethics or morals behind it. That would not work around most of the world. It only happened in China because they are used to a regime that tells them what to watch and what to think. You try taking the same approach in the EU or the USA and you will find yourself in a lot of trouble very quickly. There is no way any western country is going to accept their main media outlet being state controlled. It is an issue that they have a monopoly, but state control would be worse. If the govenment said they were taking control of Youtube there would be riots in the streets. It isnt even possible to effectively block google. They have huge IP address ranges, They hundreds of domain names. The level of monitoring and investment required to even come close to being effective would make North Korea look like a free country by comparison. True in the mean time Google's stock price would drop but its not goign to kill it. I think you are overestimating America's importance. America is a huge part of the pie but it is also a dispropotionally large cost. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 7, 2018 16:20:20 GMT
It worked for China vs Google didn't it? China instructed Google that if they did not censor the search results of the Tianmen Square Massacre of 1989 from Chinese citizens, then China would block Google entirely. Google realizing that having your services blocked entirely in China would mean a huge financial loss for them, since the Chinese economy is quite strong and something they could profit from unconditionally complied to the demands of the Chinese government. Now if the U.S did the same thing. It wouldn't matter how much Google or Youtube tried to move to different countries. If the U.S threaten to block Google and Youtube entirely, then the Google stock would plummet and probably lead the company to financial ruin, since a search engine completely closed off from the american market is pretty worthless. Do note: I'm not necessarily saying that what China did was right, or that Google did the right thing by complying. But you raised the issue about if it would "work" or not. And I just demonstrate that it could work, regardless of the ethics or morals behind it. That would not work around most of the world. It only happened in China because they are used to a regime that tells them what to watch and what to think. You try taking the same approach in the EU or the USA and you will find yourself in a lot of trouble very quickly. There is no way any western country is going to accept their main media outlet being state controlled. It is an issue that they have a monopoly, but state control would be worse. If the govenment said they were taking control of Youtube there would be riots in the streets. It isnt even possible to effectively block google. They have huge IP address ranges, They hundreds of domain names. The level of monitoring and investment required to even come close to being effective would make North Korea look like a free country by comparison. True in the mean time Google's stock price would drop but its not goign to kill it. I think you are overestimating America's importance. America is a huge part of the pie but it is also a dispropotionally large cost. The U.S has enacted trade embargos before, and is currently doing it against several countries as we speak. Yet that never caused any problem with the public whatsoever. Also, why doesn't China have these forseen problems with "monitoring" that you say that the U.S would be afflicted by? I doubt it would be any worse if the U.S government controlled google and youtube. They are bound by the U.S constitution, which isn't going to change anytime soon. I am not overstating Americas importance on the global market at all. It is a financial fact that if you get yourself closed off from the american market, then your business is pretty much dead. At least if you hope to maintain such a large corporation like Google, then it is impossible to survive without the american market. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 7, 2018 16:57:00 GMT
Blocking Google would not be a trade embargo. It would be blocking the American people from using their favourite media site. When the US takes actions like trade embargos its usually because that country is doing something the American people would not agree with, like human rights violations. Blocking the American people's access to Youtube would not be a move the American people would support.
China tracks its users to a degree that makes theri blocking possible. That amount of tracking would not be tolerated in the US because it requires a gross invasion of privacy. US citizens would not tolerate that, they tolerat it in China. In fact it is possible to circumvent the tracking systems China uses so it is not 100% effective in China.
The point is not that it would be better or worse, the point is you cannot have a free country where the government controls the 95% of the media. That is not something we want to encourage.
There are around 3,400 million internet users worldwide. America has 245 million internet users. If America blocked Google completely google loses less than 10% of its market. That is enough to drop the stock price but considering the majority of Google's loss making initiatives are based the the US it is not even close to enough to shut google down. a 10% reduction in market share isnt enough to colose any successful business. It is enough to cause some restructuring, maybe some manic cost savings, but not enough to cause a business to close.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 7, 2018 17:34:40 GMT
Blocking Google would not be a trade embargo. It would be blocking the American people from using their favourite media site. When the US takes actions like trade embargos its usually because that country is doing something the American people would not agree with, like human rights violations. Blocking the American people's access to Youtube would not be a move the American people would support. China tracks its users to a degree that makes theri blocking possible. That amount of tracking would not be tolerated in the US because it requires a gross invasion of privacy. US citizens would not tolerate that, they tolerat it in China. In fact it is possible to circumvent the tracking systems China uses so it is not 100% effective in China. The point is not that it would be better or worse, the point is you cannot have a free country where the government controls the 95% of the media. That is not something we want to encourage. There are around 3,400 million internet users worldwide. America has 245 million internet users. If America blocked Google completely google loses less than 10% of its market. That is enough to drop the stock price but considering the majority of Google's loss making initiatives are based the the US it is not even close to enough to shut google down. a 10% reduction in market share isnt enough to colose any successful business. It is enough to cause some restructuring, maybe some manic cost savings, but not enough to cause a business to close. The NSA already track citizens and their internet habits in the U.S to a far larger extent than China does. I don't see americans starting a revolution over it like you predict. Also, americans generally do not like countries or enteties who impede on the american constitution. Google clearly violates the constitution, so there's ample opportunity to have them blocked with that reasoning. Donald Trump became president, and people clearly voted more conservative than liberal. Conservatives hate google on account of their censoring and left-wing biased behaviour. The only ones who would complain if google was blocked in the U.S due to a refusal to comply with directives from the government of treating content neutrally would be some small time, college activist groups but no one that really matters. "Internet usage" is not Googles primary source of revenue. Google make most money from advertisement, and the various contracts that google have with advertisers are largely based on purchases. The U.S is one of the primary importers and consumer country in the world. If americans are suddenly unable to make purchases through google and their advertising, then Google is going to hurt a lot more than a mere 10 % of reduction in ther market shares. Oh and considering the necessary infrastructure and amount of employees that Google require, do you seriously believe that they could afford to even lose 10 % of the market? You say we cannot have a free country where the government controls 95 % of the media. The same applies if a single company or corporate entity controls 95 % of the media. A private company is not more "virtuous" or unbiased than a government would be. And I wouldn't trust just any government either. But I would trust the U.S constitution. Because that's a framework that no U.S government can freely ignore or override just to get their way. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 7, 2018 17:52:25 GMT
"Internet usage" is not Googles primary source of revenue. Google make most money from advertisement, Err yeah, advertisement on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 7, 2018 21:31:27 GMT
"Internet usage" is not Googles primary source of revenue. Google make most money from advertisement, Err yeah, advertisement on the internet. Yes, and if google as a search engine and all it's advertisement riddled services gets blocked from the U.S market, then that will show in the statistics that are used as a basis that determines how much advertisers pay Google. Suddenly it will show americans not buying anything anymore through google ads. |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 7, 2018 21:35:27 GMT
This is a pointless debate, it wouldnt even be practical to block googles thousands of domains.
|
|
|
|
Post by lampros on Mar 9, 2018 6:00:51 GMT
Hello, i made a vlog with my view on the matter, i posted it on facebook but it is still on pending. anyone interested might as well give me tree mins and watch this video, i ll be happy to discuss with all of you. have a nice day!!! united we will win. www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G7cww_vpAw |
|
|
|
Post by drakovonz on Apr 22, 2018 16:01:56 GMT
Stick to facts and avoid this subject like fire is my advice. The union is not aiming to decide which videos are better or worse. There is a fight for equal payment, regardless of political views. Payment for the created content. If there is viewership for it, then ads are delivered and payment is due. Heated debates that put the union at risk of exploitation by media will be closely monitored. The whole issue is currently too raw and we are not mature as a population, nor do we have a platform to have an adult discussion about it because of loud-mouths on both ends of the spectrum, who don't want a solution to be found for various reasons, listing of which would be political speech, which I will avoid and advise others to as well. Again, stick to facts and egalitarianism of payment for work delivered, as well as neutral access to the platform and audience reach. I fully agree. And as a user and a creator with future plans I would like to see my favourite "social-video" platform to be fair and open. Besides, YouTube is in essence a very positive thing so Im also joining the fight to save it! Cheers |
|
