[gotocake]

Maybe if you can’t manage your platform, the problem is that your platform shouldn’t be so big? In the same way that the answer to packing a club that can safely hold 100 people with 1000 people isn’t to shrug and say “well, of course we can’t safely manage this many, what did you expect?”

[Navarr]

You want an internet with upload queues?

[gotocake]

I want an Internet with alternatives to Google who can compete, because Google isn’t allowed to automate QC. If a platform can’t control itself, it shouldn’t be allowed to automate the control incompetently and call it good, then hide behind algorithms.

[SpelingBeeChamp]

Are you seriously proposing regulation of one specific private company just because you don't like the way they run their business? Man, I'm glad you're not in charge.

Google is not a government service, and YouTube (forget about YouTube-As-You-Want-It) is not a constitutional right.

Have you forgotten that you are talking about an advertising company? That's what Google is.

Don't like the business decisions of a private company? Don't patronize it.

And hey, if you think that you can do better (and that people would give a shit) you can start your competing business. There are many alternatives to every one of Google's business lines, and there are very low barriers to entry.

Fundamentally, though: why are you using a company's product that you dislike so much?

[gotocake]

Are you seriously proposing regulation of one specific private company just because you don't like the way they run their business?

No, this could apply equally to all companies, FaceBook and Twitter for example, or Amazon and their counterfeits. If your platform is too big for you to manage in a way that complies with basic consumer protections, you either need to step up your controls, or shrink your platform.

[feri339]

And what exactly would a competing service do differently? The only thing protecting the internet as we know it is the fact that platforms are not responsible for what users post. That is changing and it's a terrible trend.

[shady-lady]

> And what exactly would a competing service do differently?

Do what services should do? Review the content before it's publicly available to ensure it's not breaking laws.

> That is changing and it's a terrible trend

I feel the opposite. For far too long, internet companies have taken liberties of everything being 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. This is another example of that.

[feri339]

> Do what services should do? Review the content before it's publicly available to ensure it's not breaking laws.

Yes, but how would they do this better than YouTube can? I just feel like it's better to deal with copyright after the fact. A big part of YouTube basically runs on fair use for example. Legislation like article 13 could hurt this doctrine.

> I feel the opposite. For far too long, internet companies have taken liberties of everything being 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. This is another example of that.

But, it would affect primarily content creators of any kind. Well, the kind that isn't massive and can enter into sweeping deals with rights holders. This might not mean much to a lot of people. But the whole concept or commentary, reaction, memes, etc. and more broadly still, the internet in general relies on people being able to copy and repost and link stuff quickly and without fuss. You would basically change the internet to be even more corporate (i.e. favor big over small creators) than it is today.