← Back to context

Comment by azemetre

2 months ago

Who says we have to keep using YouTube for this vision? There's no reason why the government can't nationalize these services if they are so vital for a variety of commerce.

Or at the very least regulate it as a utility and allow users the ability to bring in their own advertising.

I'm not saying that we have to keep using YouTube for this vision, but GP stated that there would be fewer YouTube channels (but not none!). In that scenario, what incentives are there to provide a video-sharing platform that is a net negative to operate?

I don't think that nationalizing such a service makes much sense either. What motivation does a government have to operate a service for global benefit (as opposed to just its citizens)? Surely we shouldn't want a US YouTube, a French YouTube, a Japanese YouTube, etc.

> Or at the very least regulate it as a utility and allow users the ability to bring in their own advertising.

Doesn't that run counter to the premise of banning advertising in the first place?

  • > Surely we shouldn't want a US YouTube, a French YouTube, a Japanese YouTube, etc.

    Why not? What's so special about having all content on the same website? You can generally only consume videos in your own language or others you can understand. There's generally only a handful of countries that speak a certain language, and aggregators would likely appear.

    If each country had their own localised platform, local culture would have a much greater chance to flourish.

    I know plenty of teenagers who know more about US politics than their own country's, who barely know local artists, who know certain expressions in English but have no resources to convey a similar message in their native languages.

    I wouldn't mind going back to a world a little more diverse, a little less homogeneous.

    • Going further: do you want a US internet, a French internet, Japanese internet, etc? I would prefer to avoid fragmentation of the ecosystem, since it complicates discovery of content, reduces potential reach, limits cross-pollination of ideas, etc.

      Suppose that I really want to consume content from certain UK creators, but the UK YouTube-equivalent is region-locked, as much of BBC is today. That's a net loss compared to the status quo.

      > There's generally only a handful of countries that speak a certain language

      And there are plenty of people who speak languages other than their native one. English literacy / fluency is a de facto standard in tech, whether we like it or not. It's not a matter of suppressing other cultures, but rather providing a common language for discourse.

      > and aggregators would likely appear.

      I'm not so convinced. If these are services provided by governments for their residents, they're especially easy to region-lock.

      > If each country had their own localised platform, local culture would have a much greater chance to flourish.

      > I know plenty of teenagers who know more about US politics than their own country's, who barely know local artists, who know certain expressions in English but have no resources to convey a similar message in their native languages.

      I sympathize with this concern, but I don't think that this approach is the answer.

      2 replies →

  • There was an Internet before advertising. There are still sites without advertising. Why?