it isnt a publisher it is a fourm that hosts content.
and it is used in multiples more than vimeo, etc. in U.s.a.
but they are choosing who to promote/demote that makes earnings from youtube in clandestine ways
That isn't anti trust. A few thoughts:
1) They work for their shareholders to maximize revenue. They are legally obligated to do so.
2) There are only so many slots available on the home page.
3) In order to maximize profit they algorythmically optimize recommendations on the home pages based on data about what will generate the most revenue.
It's their site, their front page. They can do whatever they want.
4) Users FREELY give youtube their content. No one is forcing anyone to give youtube content. People do it on their own without any co-ersion.
5) Once a user signs up for an account, they sign a user agreement that is SPECIFICIALLY DESIGNED TO GUARANTEE THE PROTECTION OF YOUTUBES CORPORATE AND PROFIT INTERESTS.
There is not a single thing in the user agreement that implies, suggests or in any way provides protection to users that FREELY give youtube their content.
THINK OF IT THIS WAY: Youtube is a consignment store. Users freely give Youtube their content, no one forced them, IN THE SHEER HOPE AND PRAYER that they will make a bit of money from this content they give away for free. Youtube only promotes stuff that sells the best and the rest kind of fades into the background.
Then, these same users that freely gave Youtube their content for free IN THE HOPE AND PRAYER that they will make a bit of money complain. I have no idea what they are complaining bout honestly. Youtube isnot going to promote shit that doesn't sell, they are going to only on promote things that people watch + things that advertisers feel safe putting their ads on.
NOTE: I hate Youtube as much as you. I am just pointing out that the Youtube union makes no sense at all. Well ... it makes sense but only to Europeans and Germans. I know that because I have had the great misfortune of getting to know enough of them to know they are really dumb.
it comes down to if you tube alternatives exist and they dont for a consumer standpoint and youtube is interfering with the users transmission of video youtube says they still own(i read the TOS, gogle highlights this point when you search) so by that virtue i thought they had to be fair while offering a service all others pale to.
rosanne cited a courtdoc once about a sidewalk owned by a private copany but no other passageways existed..
getting people rallied is a good thing so i wouldnt be quick to call thier group futile.
That is a completely meaningless string of words. Try to think about it with these tools:
1) Do you believe in private property?
2) If yes, do you believe you should be able to do ANYTHING with your private property? Including discriminate on who gets to use your property and how?
You EITHER believe in private property, meaning that you own your home and I cannot come and take it from you. OR you believe there is no such thing as private property in which case I GET TO COME AND TAKE YOUR PROPERTY FROM YOU.
Youtube is private property. They built it. They let you put your content up for consignment and they pay you. No one else is doing it. They get to do whatever the hell they want with their property including kick you off for any reason they choose.
If they don't have that right, then you don't have a right to own a house. And I can move my chickens and pigs into that spare room that you have because, hey, no property rights means that we all get to share.
Right?
//EDIT: We got to the point I wanted to make quicker than I thought. My comment about Germans wasn't exactly what you said it was. What it was about was PRECISELY the point here: Germans (and you) are communists. By definition, you believe in the greatest evil of all: we are all the same, no one has the right to private property, you get to take my property at any time that you want.
The point of my original post, and i knew you would get to it your self, is that you don't realize that you are making the evil argument: communism is good and we should share.
No.
We should respect each other, love each other and protect each other. That is ONLY possible if at the root of your belief system is the respect for private property. The moment you believe in private property is the moment that you can very clearly and easily reason about these issues without breaking a sweat.
(post is archived)