A market that has companies with the size - or rather, the market dominance - of the likes of Google is not meaningfully a free market. The fundamental problem isn't whether Google censors or not, nor what it censors, but the very fact that its decision on this matter is so impactful.
If you want to debate anti trust and regulation then let’s do it. Google’s dominance is bad for our society, culture, and our economy but it’s not a reason to erode our fundamental rights. Compelling free speech will do nothing to erode Google’s market share or encourage competition. In fact it will further entrench Google’s dominance.
You're right, but freedom of speech is also a valid angle from which to debate antitrust and regulation. Indeed, I don't want Google to be compelled to platform others - I want platforms that large to not exist in the first place. But pointing out that censorship by big tech megacorps has very real and very negative effects that can be comparable to outright government censorship in some cases is a part of that fight.
> You're right, but freedom of speech is also a valid angle from which to debate antitrust and regulation.
The effect of YouTube’s content moderation size on speech is a symptom of weak antitrust policy, not of free expression. So sure, mention the effect on speech if you want but don’t ignore the solution.
> If you force Google alone to amplify certain speech then what competitive advantage does a less censorious service provide?
If that's the only "advantage" another service has, I don't care if it has no competitive advantage. If it offers anything else then that's the advantage.
Seriously this idea is super weird to me. There are plenty of reasons to avoid too much regulation. But "don't force company X to make their users happier because happy users won't leave" is a terrible reason.
>Define “suck less”. Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with someone you completely disagree with defining what sucks less.
A big part of the "if" is that people are making their own evaluations.
> You’re talking about antitrust
I am not talking about antitrust. I'm saying that the bigger and more powerful a corporation gets the further it is from a human and human rights.
> Compelled speech is an erosion of the first amendment. You may think that erosion is acceptable but you can’t deny it exists.
In this case, barely at all, and it's the same one we already have for common carriers.
> If that's the only "advantage" another service has, I don't care if it has no competitive advantage. If it offers anything else then that's the advantage.
The value proposition of a less censorious YouTube alternative is exactly that it is less censorious. You’re seemingly arguing against free markets.
> Seriously this idea is super weird to me. There are plenty of reasons to avoid too much regulation. But "don't force company X to make their users happier because happy users won't leave" is a terrible reason.
The problem with compelled speech is that the government should not be in the business of deciding what kind of speech makes people happy.
> A big part of the "if" is that people are making their own evaluations.
People should have the freedom to choose the media they consume. Compelled speech takes that choice away from them by putting the government in the position of making that decision for the people. This distorts the marketplace of ideas.
I don’t have time to read every comment or email or watch every video. Private content moderation is a value add and a form of expression. We need competition in that space, not government restriction.
> I am not talking about antitrust. I'm saying that the bigger and more powerful a corporation gets the further it is from a human and human rights.
If your problem with Google is how much influence they have then yes, you are talking about antitrust. That’s the regulatory mechanism by which excessive corporate influence can be restricted.
> In this case, barely at all, and it's the same one we already have for common carriers.
“A little” is still more than nothing which was your previous assertion. You may be comfortable with the rising temperature of our shared pot of water but I say it is a cause for concern.
You're only talking about the people that like a feature. Why do you need a free market for that if every company can do it?
Not everything has to be a free market. There are reasons to use competition but not this reason.
> the government should not be in the business of deciding what kind of speech makes people happy
I did not say or intentionally imply they should.
> People should have the freedom to choose the media they consume. Compelled speech takes that choice away
Not if the compelling is just that they can't ban content. That only adds choice.
> If your problem with Google is how much influence they have then yes, you are talking about antitrust. That’s the regulatory mechanism by which excessive corporate influence can be restricted.
There can be other mechanisms, and more importantly my argument there isn't about mechanisms. They are barely barely humanlike, so human rights are barely barely relevant.
> “A little” is still more than nothing which was your previous assertion. You may be comfortable with the rising temperature of our shared pot of water but I say it is a cause for concern.
It's barely any increase because we already have common carrier rules.
And I stand by the statement that it doesn't erode fundamental rights. The right of giant corporations to have free speech is at the edge, not fundamental. And a rule like that increases the free speech of so many actual humans.
> I did not say or intentionally imply they should.
It is literally the very first thing you said in this comment thread. It either frames your entire argument or you have no idea what you are talking about.
> How is compelling google to censor less going to entrench their dominance? If it's purely by making them suck less, I'm okay with that risk.
I was trying to figure out how it would entrench dominance. So when I say *if* it's by making them suck less, that's a hypothetical guess, not an endorsement.
And even if it would objectively make them suck less in some scenario, there's still nothing in that post that says I want the government to force them to do it. That post was only about whether it entrenches their dominance or not.
Then in my next comment I:
* put the word 'advantage' in scare quotes
* clarified that "if they suck less" is supposed to be evaluated by individual people and not me
* stated that there are reasons to not want regulation, but that I was skeptical of this specific entrenchment reason
The first two should make it clear that I'm not even saying it's an advantage, and the third should make it clear that I'm focusing on this specific argument and not making an overall case for government intervention. So that's three reasons I'm not saying the government should do it.
How do I make my non-endorsement clearer?
Also you were the one calling it a "competitive advantage" and "value proposition". That's not endorsement but it's definitely closer to endorsement than what I was saying.
Edit: Wait, I made this whole post interpreting the "should" as about government intervention. But I think technically that "should" was actually about the government deciding what makes people happy? If that's what you meant to ask then I have no idea how you got there. The sentences you quoted don't support that interpretation at all. The "suck less -> entrenchment" theory only works if users are actually happy, completely separate from what the government thinks.
