Getting banned from YouTube is not a violation of individual rights. Forcing a company to host videos for free sounds like a violation of individual rights though.
No it's totally not a violation of anyone's rights, but that doesn't stop me from being able to oppose the idea. Like how I support drugs being legalized but I don't think everyone should start doing drugs.
They aren't hosting the videos for free - they're displaying them alongside advertisements to make revenue off those videos.
Also, the rights given an individual are distinct from the rights given to a company, and IMO are distinct from the rights a company deserves (i.e. a company has no inherent right to exist).
Wait what? The first amendment protections are just a limit on GOVERNMENT power. The right is that THE GOVERNMENT won't prevent your speech. Youtube isn't the government, therefore they can limit the fuck out of your speech when you're on their property.
I think most agree that Government needs to be prevented from preventing our speech not that our neighbors must allow us to grandstand upon their property even if their property is listed as a public place to grandstand. They have been given rights over the venue and we're supposed to be intelligent enough to recognize government activity vs private activity.
Why can't the voice actor of mickey mouse say fuck more often? iTs hIs pHiloSoPhicAl rIGhT!!! Sure, he can say fuck and then get fucking fired.
Free speech is a natural right. The first amendment protects that right explicitly from the government, but if they didn't then that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right. There's a reason why that same idea is encoded in human rights as well.
Platforms like YouTube have basically become the public square. A lot of political engagement happens on platforms like YouTube. Perhaps we should expect them to offer free speech as well? They already have more rights than you and I, perhaps they should get some responsibility too?
>Free speech is a natural right. .... that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right.
Yes but still they have theirs also. That's what people don't seem to connect between the two. You have no right to my property and all the right to say what the hell you like. Just because I offer my property as a place to speak doesn't mean I have to offer my property without restrictions, how about bearing arms? Why then could a church or school prevent my being armed?
If an individual can change the terms of our property use agreement by saying anything he wants on my property when I object then cannot I change terms by kicking him and his "publication/broadcast" off of my property? Seems a pretty straight forward contract dispute to me. You may enjoy your rights on your property.
You can argue that the Second Amendment was not written with machine guns and rocket launchers in mind. I'm going to argue that the First Amendment was not written with the foresight that nearly all of the total bandwidth of communication between all people would be done using technologies that transcend physical property.
I like your thinking on this but Cannons existed...I think our failing maybe to fully understand their definitions of their times. That said, I don't think their definition of speech and property would be much different even if we're actualizing them in virtual realms. That would have been covered by "freedom of the press." You're literally just still publishing an opinion to someone's virtual press. There's no reason they must publish your writing either.
We have laws against monopolies and trusts to prevent this very thing, but the government is reluctant to enforce them. Not enforcing the 14th amendment's "Equal Protection" clause is the real spoiler here.
It’s not only about it being our most important right. We also expect our communications platforms have morality, and criticize them when they do immoral things.
Many think belief in free speech is an important moral - doubly important for communications companies like Youtube/Google.
The thing that gets me is, the folks who think Google should delete such content have no trouble with the idea that services have moral obligations which go beyond what's legally required of them when arguing they should remove stuff. It's only when someone argues the moral obligation goes the other way that it suddenly becomes about what's legally required and only that.
> because it became the de facto place most of non tech-savy people go to to see videos online. They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention
Society has a vested interest in either regulating or breaking up monopolies. Our rights don't magically stop at property borders. It needs to be checked on a case-by-case basis, whether the right to free speech or youtube's right to do what they please with their property is more important.
> Our rights don't magically stop at property borders.
Actually that's almost exactly what "property" means. Famously, "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." Or in less flowery language: Your rights end where others' property begins.
If you think YouTube has a "monopoly", the right way to address it would be to start up a competing site. There are no significant barriers to entry in starting a video streaming site. They're a dime a dozen these days. Google will even sell you the server capacity and bandwidth, or you can host it on one of their competitors' cloud platforms or rent space in a datacenter somewhere. Your main concern will be dealing with the inevitable DMCA complaints related to user-submitted content.
Of course, you should be prepared to deal with the fact that your site will mainly be populated with all the videos YouTube doesn't want to host, often for very good reasons.
I don't know where you heard that, but that is not what property means. The concept of property represents a set of rights (and maybe obligations) that an owner of said property does possess. Your nose is not your property by the way, because the rights you have towards your own body are very different (and a lot stronger) than the ones you have towards your property.
So your rights do not end where other's property begins. What they actually might do is be in conflict with the rights of the owner. But only in a country where capitalism is driven to cynical extremes would the rights of the owner win per default. I know of no such country.
> There are no significant barriers to entry in starting a video streaming site.
Of course there are and you even state one of them three sentences later. Online platforms with user content are very similar to natural monopolies. While anyone can start a video streaming site, it is obviously extremely hard if not impossible to actually compete with Youtube. I mean even google tried and failed. But I'm sure you aware of that. What I don't know is why you bring up the straw-man of "starting a video streaming site", knowing full well that starting such a site will not change anything about youtube's monopoly.
> If you think YouTube has a "monopoly", the right way to address it would be to start up a competing site.
So, no – the right way to address it is to handle it as we handle all the other monopolies and regulate it or break it up.
> The concept of property represents a set of rights (and maybe obligations) that an owner of said property does possess.
Just the one right, actually: The right to decide how the property is used. That's both necessary and sufficient. There are no obligations beyond reciprocation, respecting that same right when it comes to others' property.
> Your nose is not your property by the way, because the rights you have towards your own body are very different (and a lot stronger) than the ones you have towards your property.
No, they're exactly the same. Your body is your property. The only difference is that you can't give up ownership of your body as a whole (it's inalienable), and that's simply because there is no practical way for you to relinquish control over your body to anyone else short of your death. Even if you agreed to it you would still remain in control, which would render any such agreement void. Certain individual parts, of course, are a different matter. In every other respect your body is just like any other kind of property.
> What they actually might do is be in conflict with the rights of the owner.
Any use of others' property against their wishes conflicts with the right(s) of the owner. This is a distinction without a difference.
>> There are no significant barriers to entry in starting a video streaming site.
> Of course there are and you even state one of them three sentences later.
DMCA complaints are a problem created by the government. If you want to do away with copyright, I have no objections. However, this is not a significant barrier to entry because it only starts to become a burden at scale. Small sites with user-submitted content regularly deal with such matters manually, while large ones have had time to implement the needed infrastructure for automating the process.
> ... starting such a site will not change anything about youtube's monopoly.
Because YouTube doesn't have a monopoly. What it has is popularity. Anyone can start up a site that does what YouTube does, but that won't automatically make it popular. The responsibility for that is 100% on the prospective competitor.
Popularity is fickle. Sites everyone turned to yesterday may be deserted wastelands tomorrow. (E.g.: MySpace) If your site is actually better at giving people what they want, it will win. Your problem is that YouTube actually is giving most people what they want. If you broke it up you'd end up with a bunch of YouTube-clones with basically the same policies, because they're trying to attract the same audience YouTube has now. You want to change what people want, which is naturally unpopular and likely doomed to fail.
In short, despite your complaints about "natural monopolies" and the difficulties of competing, you don't really want to compete with YouTube, just leverage its existing popularity to push your own agenda. The problem with this is that its popularity is a product of its audience-pleasing policies, not any sort of monopoly, natural or otherwise. If you did manage to force YouTube to follow your preferred policies it would become less and less popular until it was eventually be replaced by a competitor that looks more like the YouTube of today. So breaking it up wouldn't help you at all. Regulating it and actively preventing competition, or regulating all such sites the same way regardless of "monopoly" status, would better serve your purpose, but that's just exchanging one (non-)monopoly for a much larger monopoly, namely the government.
> Any use of others' property against their wishes conflicts with the right(s) of the owner. This is a distinction without a difference.
There is a very big difference between your rights ending or being in conflict.
> Popularity is fickle.
The only examples I know for this are myspace and digg. I don't think popularity is that fickle once you have the content.
> Because YouTube doesn't have a monopoly. [...] If your site is actually better at giving people what they want, it will win. Your problem is that YouTube actually is giving most people what they want.
So how exactly is youtube now not a monopoly and it is possible to successfully compete with it?
> You want to change what people want, which is naturally unpopular and likely doomed to fail.
I want none of these things, I was explaining how rights to free speech relate to someone else's property.
> In short, despite your complaints about "natural monopolies" and the difficulties of competing, you don't really want to compete with YouTube, just leverage its existing popularity to push your own agenda.
Where is this even coming from?
> The problem with this is that its popularity is a product of its audience-pleasing policies, not any sort of monopoly, natural or otherwise. If you did manage to force YouTube to follow your preferred policies it would become less and less popular until it was eventually be replaced by a competitor that looks more like the YouTube of today.
I highly question your theory that Youtube's popularity is a product of it allowing extremist content.
> but that's just exchanging one (non-)monopoly for a much larger monopoly, namely the government.
Now you're just trying to be clever with words, but I'll bite. As I wrote before
> Society has a vested interest in either regulating or breaking up monopolies.
The government is democratically elected by society and highly regulated.
Is the "someone" positioning their property as "a place for people to say stuff, generally speaking" and promoting it that way?
There is established case law and legislation in the US, though pretty variable by state in terms of details, that people can in fact have free speech rights on private property when the private property de-facto functions as a public square. The devil is, as usual, in the details, and the details are, as usual, not time-invariant here.
