Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

Then it is a terrible comparison. Google does not control distribution of video content on the web. There are many platforms that could be used to share a movie on the web.

That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators.

I did not. The original question was framed poorly. What was meant was "Name one endpoint provider who will serve your content for free." That would indeed be a short list. The ISP has nothing to do with serving the file. Only the transit. He got the answer to the question he asked because I'm getting weary of people strawmanning that people are freeloaders while they seemingly intentionally miss the bigger point that a behemoth of a private company is being leaned upon and taking upon itself the mantle of arbiter of appropriate content.

The fact everyone else seems to enjoy getting cavalier withthe details of just who does what in the context of Internet business transactions doesn't mean I have to perpetuate it.

Also, I do serve things for people without charging them. I have an Internet connection I need for other things. So why not? The ISP doesn't care. It's another packet among billions. It was what the hackers, anon's, and webmasters before me did; so I figure I should return the favor to the next gen. If that means a bunch of people end up getting in a tizzy; take it up with them (the people whose content to which you object). I'm not doing your dirty work, and no one else if they value the principles the web, and the country who invented the damn thing we're founded on.

I've been writing and rewriting the end of this damn post for about half an hour, which is generally a good sign I'm out of sorts. So let me wrap up with an apology if I've come off as abrasive. I do care. I don't like that the web seems so ripe a tool for the misinformation specialist. Now, even more than ever though, we need to be coming together and not figuring out how to push people or ideas off the Net, but being able to engage them head on, and bring the light back to what have increasingly become the "dark corners" of the Net. You may hate having the same argument over and over again. I understand that. Society though is a complexemergent organism all it's own built on the aggregate result of our collective signalling and behavior. Right now, the only outcome I can from the direction we're going is the complete ruin of everything Western Civilization purportedly held sacred because we've let the implementation run away with us, without keeping it chained to the spirit of the damn thing.

I know none of that probably makes any sense to anyone else but me. I just... Wanted to get it out there.

Anyway... Good night everyone. Stay safe.

> Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat.

At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat.

> If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs.

I'm not excusing anyone. Freedom of expression is symmetric: anybody who belongs to an "online hate mob" is going to face the consequence of me not wanting to interact with them. For all I know, that's what they want too!

Still just watermarked, in fact.

> That makes it pretty unlike telegraph operators.

I never said that YouTube was exactly like telegraph operators. I was making a much more general comparison between of communication magnates back then and now.

It seems like a pretty direct mapping to me.

Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past both benefited greatly from the government, and yet they like to claim they are "private platforms", and are therefore entitled to be as evil as they like, as long as it happens on their network.

Big tech today and telegraph operators of the past did evil stuff. And the free market did not stop them. The people and the government had to restrain them.

Facebook and Google are doing some really egregious things. And I think it is going to take direct government sanction to keep them in line.

And yes, I do think that effectively Google and a few other companies have a de-facto monopoly on video platforms, due to their vertically integrated infrastructure. I don't think there is a realistic way to exert market pressure against their agenda.

Just the tip of the iceberg, but independent journalists/podcasters that tried informing the public about horrible working conditions at Amazon warehouses were systemically removed from YouTube. Only organizations deemed "legitimate" are even allowed to upload videos where people use the word "coronavirus" without having their videos demoted, or outright deleted. Independent journalists banned, but Fox and MSNBC are promoted to the front page.

Do I seriously have to connect the dots about how companies like Google and Amazon are starting to act very much like 19th century industrialists?