Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

Post by 7786655 » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

mikorym wrote: post #592

koheripbal wrote: post #112

I think a more fundamental problem is a single private company having a near-monopoly on various public communication channels, and having financial interests in various global dictatorships. The Founding Fathers could not have predicted this. Google's "We're a private company" get-out-jail-free card cannot continue to apply.

I think the solution to this is simple: Pay for every service you use. The question was historically then how do teenagers (or the developing world for that matter) pay for electronic services and cue Facebook and Google.

Post by manigandham » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

birdyrooster wrote: post #632

manigandham wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is to realize "hate speech" is mostly subjective and revert back to the clear rules that we had last decade before the current political climate of gratuitous outrage.

No. The great opening of the Internet brought points of view onto the internet at scales that hitherto were unknown. There are so many asshats on the Internet that old tactics of manual moderation do not work anymore. Doing nothing is a pathetic excuse for a solution.

Post by pb7 » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

three_seagrass wrote: post #622

subsubzero wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some numbers to keep you up at night, they are very scary: Google controls 91.89% of the search market [1] G controls 68% of the browser market [2] G's android is on 84% of phones operating systems [3] G has 73% of the search advertising market [4] [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/544400/market-share-of-i... [3] https://beta.trimread.com/articl…

Your [1] is incorrect. It doesn't even include Baidu, which dominates China and has something like >12% of the world's market share for search engines, so how can Google have 91%?

Post by jaccarmac » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #456

shadowgovt wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it replaced with "I'm an American company?" There's a deep rabbit-hole of hyper-nationalism right next to the deep rabbit-hole of hyper-corporatism. Does a YouTube beholden to the US government get banned from being used in China at all? And if it does, what happens when China creates a competing product that is more successful than YouTube, and YouTube gets displaced globally by a product that is beholden to…

Hyper-nationalism is a backlash to globalism due to the recently realized risks of opaque governments exploiting transparent governments. The intentions were good: Reduce the risk of global nuclear war. The globalism outcome is good for trade and relations with nations that have transparent governments, bad with the opaque.

Post by Udik » Mon, May 18, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #112

I think a more fundamental problem is a single private company having a near-monopoly on various public communication channels, and having financial interests in various global dictatorships. The Founding Fathers could not have predicted this. Google's "We're a private company" get-out-jail-free card cannot continue to apply.