[ytNumbers]

It's often a shame that network effects are nearly impossible to overcome. It looks like the feature of "less censorship" will never be enough to mount a challenge to YouTube. But, perhaps posts like these from Google will one day succeed in persuading people to start looking elsewhere for videos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services

[JoshTriplett]

> It looks like the feature of "less censorship" will never be enough to mount a challenge to YouTube.

s/censorship/moderation/. And no, "we host everything" is a fast way to kill a potential competitor to YouTube. The first and fastest adopters of such a platform will be the people rejected from other platforms, which rapidly turns any "we host everything" platform into a cesspool that nobody else wants to use.

[ytNumbers]

YouTube could wind up with cesspool videos? The horror!! It's a good thing they've now got these new guidelines in place to remove all the garbage videos. I'm sure that all the remaining allowed videos won't hurt anyone's feelings. /s

I'm not advocating for zero censorship. I just think this reads like they're heading down a slippery slope.

[JoshTriplett]

> I just think this reads like they're heading down a slippery slope.

Standing reminder: the "slippery slope" is a fallacy, not an argument. You can do one thing without doing every possible further step past that thing.

[ytNumbers]

You might be right. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about YouTube to argue whether or not Google's new censorship policies are quickly getting out of hand. But, someone like Tim Pool seems to be quite well informed on that subject, and he makes a compelling case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoN-MZV7-7c

[burfog]

Believing every slippery slope to be a fallacy is itself a fallacy.

The same goes with conspiracy theories. They aren't all wrong!

[onychomys]

I'm sure the Nazis and Sandy Hook Truthers will be happy to know there are so many other options. Look, we live in a world where, for better or worse, we don't force publishers to publish anything they don't want to. Youtube telling Nazis to go jump in a lake is no different than your local paper declining to run an editorial from one. It just seems different because the scope is so much bigger.

[jonathankoren]

Exactly. You have a freedom to speak. You don't have a freedom to use someone else's forum to gain an audience. No more than I have a right to walk into your house and do whatever I want.

[tracker1]

Funny, I seem to recall all sorts of instances where the government has forced people and businesses to cater to those that they don't want to... Hell, Title IX is based on the premise of providing equal access by protected classes.

And for reference, political party is a protected class in DC, and that could extend to other areas. Politicians aren't allowed to block people on Twitter or Facebook, it's only a matter of time before the companies themselves aren't allowed to in many conditions.

There's also the concept of a public space in private ownership to consider. There's a big difference between your living room and a restaurant or park.

[jonathankoren]

None of this is relevant. None of these protected classes are applicable here. Nothing has ever been about compelled speech or compelled publication.

If you really believe where you’re argument is going, I demand you give me your twitter account to use, so I can tweet whatever I want. If you don’t do that, you’re censoring me, and I guess I should sue you or something.

I’m not hard find online. I’ll be waiting for your DM.

[tracker1]

At one point, protected classes weren't... then they were... The government cannot restrict your access, but they can force companies to expand it to be more equal.

[jonathankoren]

You’re still not making a good argument that a publisher refusing to publish a submission is censorship.

I’m also still waiting for that DM. Why are you censoring me?