you forget "because of this law, which i don't really understand, and which really doesn't apply here. But it should!"
you forget "because of this law, which i don't really understand, and which really doesn't apply here. But it should!"
Google has practically a monopoly on a large part of the internet, and i feel that the government should probably regulate Youtube and larger sites to protect free speech.
Something about a contract of adhesion.
Something about a contract of adhesion.
You don't know what you're babbling about.
Using data from January 2016 (Netcraft charges for more recent data), GoDaddy is far and away the biggest hosting provider by active domain names hosted, and Amazon is the biggest by IP addresses hosted (via their S3 service). Source: https://www.netcraft.com/internet-data-mining/hosting-analysis/ . Google isn't even in the top five for either.
Moreover, Google is primarily a search engine; they have a hosting service, but are a bit player in that market. If you don't like their hosting terms, there are alternatives (again, I recommend Rackspace, but there are any number of others). As to search engines, it's the user's choice what search engine to use; Bing, Yahoo, and several others are out there. If you don't like Google, use something else. Yes, Google may be your browser's default (I think IE defaults to Bing), but it's not that hard to change, even for the laziest of people.
As for standard-form contracts, they're not illegal or even morally wrong. Unconscionability can arise, depending upon the circumstances, but it requires both substantive unconscionability (the terms are patently unfair) and procedural unconscionability (agreement/assent was procured in an unfair manner) to get there. Who held the gun to your head to make you agree to Google/YouTube's terms of service? What? You did it of your own free will? Yeah, procedural is out, so get over it.
Next time, do a little research, and try thinking instead of feeling. We don't need more of the Nanny State to protect your poor little feelings.
I agree that hosting services such as GoDaddy are also monopolies that require regulation.
Are there 'alternatives' to Youtube? not really. the platform Youtube offers is above and beyond that of any other site.
Google's Youtube has become just as central to modern politics as the soap box or street corner. the Internet is the modern street corner, and allowing a handful of sites to ban certain opinions because they disagree with them is harmful to our democracy.
Is there anything you don't want the government to regulate? Also, do you even know what "monopoly" (and its close cousin "oligopoly") means?
Run your own hosting and you can have any features you want, many of them much more powerful that YouTube. Yes, you'll have to pay for your own hosting; no, nobody owes you free hosting, regardless of the suite of features. "Free press" means free as in speech, not free as in beer. If you want to say something that somebody else (who is paying the bills) doesn't want to host, start writing cheques for your own hosting.
A handful of sites out of millions, including the one you, yourself can set up. Rackspace (and others) will give you a bare pipe and you can do whatever you want; others provide hosting with some technical limitations, but don't concern themselves with your content (again, within the bounds of the law; your kiddie-porn collection won't fly).
In times past, when a few big newspapers dominated the discourse, individuals went out to--yes--the streetcorner with handbills. They wanted to get a message out, so they put forth a little effort to do so. Yes, arranging your own hosting, and paying market rate, is more effort than clicking "upload" and sitting back while the hits roll in.
Google, et al., owe you nothing. Get over yourself, snowflake.
mo·nop·o·ly
məˈnäpəlē/
noun
- 1.
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"
Sure. But we're not talking about an actual commodity like beer or oil; we're talking about content neutrality. If you want to run a business and be licensed to do so, you must obey the regulations as stipulated by the government and pay your taxes. If you don't want to agree to those terms, don't do business in the United States.
There is a limited number of domain registrars, and it requires significant startup costs. domain names are infact a limited resource and should be regulated as such.
https://makeawebsitehub.com/reviews/domain-registrars/
You might also be surprised to note that i don't own a kiddie porn collection.
This is not a fair comparison, because whereas in the past newspaper organizations owned the printing presses and so on, they didn't own the streets that delivered the newspaper to your house. they didn't own the street corners where they handed out the newspapers.
If i was a ****ing snowflake we wouldn't be having this conversation, i'd be on some liberal websites parroting to people who agreed with me.
Very good; you can cut-and-paste. Now, try for comprehension, particularly of the word in red. From dictionary.com:
exclusive
adjective
1.
not admitting of something else; incompatible:
mutually exclusive plans of action.
2.
omitting from consideration or account (often followed by of):
a profit of ten percent, exclusive of taxes.
3.
limited to the object or objects designated:
exclusive attention to business.
4.
shutting out all others from a part or share:
an exclusive right to film the novel.
5.
fashionable; stylish:
to patronize only the most exclusive clothing designers.
6.
charging comparatively high prices; expensive:
exclusive shops.
7.
noting that in which no others have a share:
exclusive information.
Note how the words "no others," "shutting out all others," and similar come up. I've already demonstrated that others exist; if you need more examples (including independent reviews!), this may help: http://bfy.tw/FTF4
You obviously missed the meaning of the metaphor; let's try using the Latin terms instead: hosting libre vs. hosting gratis. Free to do what you want vs. free of charge. The "net neutrality" argument doesn't apply here; net neutrality refers to carrying data, not hosting it. It applies to Cox/AT&T/Level 3 Communications/backbone providers/etc. Nobody is proposing to block or drop packets based on your viewpoints; a hosting provider is saying "we don't want to run this under our name."
The number of domain names available is growing rapidly as new TLDs are approved. I'm sure you could come up with something you like, even if you have to go to a subdomain (hint: WordPress will give you a freebie, and even provide free hosting, at least to a point). As to the "limited number of registrars," well, yeah; there are also a limited number of blades of grass in my yard. The limit isn't meaningful, though, and you can even use a foreign registrar if you thing fed.gov is censoring you (hint: it isn't).
Google doesn't own the pipes that deliver the packets to your house, either. See above about Cox, AT&T, L3, etc.
Again, research will help you understand.
That is only one of his problems.
Similar threads
