Comment on Indigenous creators are clashing with YouTube’s and Instagram’s sensitive content bans.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks agoThe issue is that when companies are able to get large enough to control the virtual town square, them censoring people has the same impact as the government censoring people. And especially given the fact that they’re all companies held by literally millions of people, who don’t get input into the speech allowed on the platform, allowing them the “freedom” to restrict speech how they see fit doesn’t make sense.
You don’t have the option to not use major platforms and have your voice heard, because they’ve done the work to make it virtually impossible.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Every consumer has input in to what a company does by simply choosing to support the company or not. Companies tend to move really quick to fix shit when they see profit margins start to dip.
No one is being forced to use either platform, and it is the platforms choice who they allow to use it. Don’t like their rules, go else where.
Kind of like Lemmy instances. Don’t like the rules, go somewhere you can agree with them.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Your choices are “follow YouTube’s rules” or “don’t distribute video content”.
YouTube has a monopoly.
lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 4 weeks ago
There’s like [checks notes] 2 more video platforms on the internet!
No reason these people can’t post on those, or host their own.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Unless they want it to be possible that people see their content.
Let’s assume that if you share a YouTube video, you get a 1% click through to people watching the video. If you share the same video the same way, but hosted on your own platform, it will drop to .0001%. It’s not viable. People will watch YouTube. They won’t watch on random other platforms.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Compelling argument.
I will just go and do a quick search to find plenty of alternative hosting platforms and choose to use one of them to immediately distribute video content and nullify your only point.
Youtube only maintains a monopoly if people choose to use the platform. Alternatives exist. Self hosting exists. Doing something more productive than posting “content” online exists. Lets not forget about the film industry.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Having a website people can theoretically watch your video on isn’t distribution.
People watching your video is distribution.
There’s nowhere but YouTube where you can host video and have actual meaningful viewership be a possibility. YouTube has an absolute, complete dominance of the video space.