Comment by stcredzero | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stcredzero | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No matter how much the definition of monopoly is twisted, I’m sorry, but FaceBook isn’t one.

Monopoly isn't important. It's the control of discourse within an entire community which is key. Hell, it's not one entire community these companies control. It's hordes of communities across entire forms of online discourse for huge fractions and even the majority of populations online.

YouTube is dominant, because people make a totally free choice to use it, not because competition can’t exist.

Due to network effects, effective competition can't exist. This gives YouTube the potential to nearly absolutely control the very broad category of video discourse online.

Nothing about being dominant in a market or network effects directly implies a monopoly.

In 2019, this just seems ridiculous. This has got to change.

It’s not as though we’re dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want heat or a running vehicle you do business with them, or get bent!

It's as though we're dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want to be a full time political vlogger, you hew to YouTube's rules and politics, or get bent.

First you say that “monopoly isn’t important” and then go on to claim:

Due to network effects, effective competition can't exist.

And

>Nothing about being dominant in a market or network effects directly implies a monopoly.

In 2019, this just seems ridiculous. This has got to change.

And then

It's as though we're dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want to be a full time political vlogger, you hew to YouTube's rules and politics, or get bent.

Now first of all your last point is conflating the right to express yourself with the right to make a career on someone’s platform expressing yourself. The latter is not protected, but as you live in a free country you are welcome to try to change the law I guess. You can after all still be a full-time political vlogger without YouTuber, Alex Jones seems to manage it (unfortunately). It will be harder to find a mass audience and make money, but that isn’t protected and neither does it imply monopolistic practices.

As far as the need for network effects to be classified as monopolistic, I disagree, but again if you feel otherwise then by all means, try to get that passed into law. What isn’t acceptable is pretending or arguing as though it already is. I suspect that your attempt to pass such a law would be met with scorn and incredulity, because after all you’d be arguing for the inaliabel right to make a living spouting views online. As it stands no one is stopping you from attempting to do so, and no one owes it to you either.

First you say that “monopoly isn’t important” and then go on to claim:

The 20th century concept of "monopoly" is entirely insufficient. This is the underlying cause of the pseudo-paradox.

Now first of all your last point is conflating the right to express yourself with the right to make a career on someone’s platform expressing yourself.

Controlling monetization+virality/discovery is too potent a combination to let a single entity control for censorship purposes.

As far as the need for network effects to be classified as monopolistic, I disagree

It's hard to convince someone of a fact, if their bread and butter depend on their not acknowledging it.

As it stands no one is stopping you from attempting to do so, and no one owes it to you either.

If a bunch of people want to hear, and others are blocking, then the right to Free Speech is being abrogated. If people want to pay, and others are artificially blocking, then the right to Free Speech is also being abrogated.

How about this analogy:

3 newspapers dominate the news industry. Their circulation reaches the majority of people in a country. They refuse to publish editorials / letters from a certain point of view.

That fits all of the tests that you have outlined above, yet I think most would agree the newspapers have the right to editorialize and selectively publish what they choose.

3 newspapers dominate the news industry

In that case, these newspapers have a tremendous capability to manipulate the public. Don't have to take that from me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

You can definitely political vlog by renting space on a CDN to host your own webm's. Or BitTorrenting them and sharing magnet links. Google can't stop you.

Google can't stop you.

In 2019, the potent combination is virality/discovery+monetization. Google along with the rest of the SV CEOs and other people of equivalent status can indeed withhold that, despite the wishes of large numbers of people. Just "putting things online" is so 1990's. In 2019, the real power comes from that dynamite combination of virality/discovery+monetization. A 2019 formulation of Free Speech needs to account for that.

We saw this before in the 1980's with Manufacturing Consent. The western papers technically weren't censoring like Pravda. But in effect it amounted to the same thing.

The litmus test should be: Are there people who want to hear, yet a few are using infrastructure control to stop them? Then Free Speech is being blocked. Are there people who want to pay, yet a few using infrastructure control to stop them? Then Free Speech is being blocked.

Again, you're conflating free speech with indexing. You're as entitled to be listed in a newpaper's classifieds as you are entitled to be indexed on a search engine or hosted on a private website. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be listed by someone else through force.

Again, you're conflating free speech with indexing.

In 2019, indexing gives you the capability to define reality. People riding on the coattails of giant SV corporations have been using this capability to basically put words into the mouths of people and ascribe positions to them that have no real bearing on the truth.

In 2019, indexing is part and parcel of Free Speech. In 2019, you don't have Freedom of Speech if you aren't indexed, and you can't trend. In 2019, trying to exercise Freedom of Speech like that is like giving a 19th century speech with a tracheotomy. It's not the same by literal orders of magnitude. It's as disingenuous as giving one man a club and your political crony a rifle, then declaring trial by combat and saying it's a fair fight.

And in 2019, Freedom of speech is not freedom to be listed by someone else through force. Reality is not the internet, cable tv, radio, or the printing press.

"No" and "No," then. "Strangers don't find out about my podcast" is nothing like "nobody can hear me." "PayPal won't middle-man my transaction" is nothing like "I can't get paid" (mailing checks or cash is a thing).

That's technically true in the same way that western media technically didn't censor news favorable to the Soviets. It did appear, but buried in the back, expressed in bland language.

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

The salient truth, is that corporate oligarchs are trying to game the system so that their own side has several orders of magnitude more voice, and everyone they don't like has several orders of magnitude less voice -- then try and claim it's "Free Speech" and "fair." No. The system is rigged, and the disingenuous arguments are made simply because the law and cultural norms haven't caught up with technical reality yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com