Too low? Okay, 98.6% of the market. I honestly know of no other organization that seriously competes with Google/Youtube.
Nothing is stopping anyone from making their own video site, and there are plenty of alternatives out there.
Yes, blacks can sit at black lunch counters. There is no reason why they should have to be served at white lunch counters when they can find lunch counters meant to serve them.
So, simply being very popular or successful in your niche makes you exempt from exercising the rights of a private business owner, is that the test?
Far too simplistic of an analysis. My thinking goes more along the lines of "Does this move us towards Nazism? Does this affect elections? Is this a threat to the very idea of "Freedom of Speech"?
I've considered the topic in some depth. I have concluded that the founders felt freedom of speech was absolutely necessary because it allowed the public to hear all sides before voting on a proposal. It gave them fuller information which was necessary to make good decisions.
I've also concluded that stopping freedom of speech is a threat to our system of governance, and that the means of stopping it is irrelevant to the threat it poses.
Freedom of speech cannot be allowed to be stopped, because it is too essential to our form of governance. People immediately see the danger of government censorship of speech, but they have so long accepted this notion that private companies can do anything they wish that they are oblivious to the danger of a private monopoly controlling an essential means of communications.
YouTube needs to be *FORCED* and I mean with the entire mighty hammer of government, to serve *EVERYONE* who sits at their lunch counter.
All the nations of the world ban freedom of speech, and it is currently wreaking horrible havoc on Europe. We cannot allow the government, or any other agency, to stop the right of Americans to be heard on all systems of communications.
We are hanging by a thread now, and if we allow companies to censor information because they are the dominant carriers of the traffic, we will lose it all.
Under Nazism, the Corporations were Cronies of the Government, and there really was no line between where "Private" ended and "Government" began. We cannot allow such a system to take root here.
“Too low? Okay, 98.6% of the market.”
Best figures I can find are from a couple years ago, but it was around 70%.
“Yes, blacks can sit at black lunch counters. There is no reason why they should have to be served at white lunch counters when they can find lunch counters meant to serve them.”
This is too ridiculous a comparison to even merit a response.
“Far too simplistic of an analysis. My thinking goes more along the lines of “Does this move us towards Nazism? Does this affect elections? Is this a threat to the very idea of “Freedom of Speech”?”
Private businesses have no responsibility to provide platforms for “freedom of speech”. Still, you’ve sidestepped my question without answering it, so I’ll have to ask again. What threshold do you think should allow government to quash the rights of the private business owner? How popular does their business get to be before their rights are stripped away?
“People immediately see the danger of government censorship of speech, but they have so long accepted this notion that private companies can do anything they wish that they are oblivious to the danger of a private monopoly controlling an essential means of communications.”
Youtube isn’t a monopoly though, and yes, that notion is accepted because it is the law, and based on a right that is just as essential as freedom of speech, which is the right to private property. Socialism and communism amply demonstrate that infringing on private property rights is just as mortal a threat to liberty as infringing on freedom of speech.
“YouTube needs to be *FORCED* and I mean with the entire mighty hammer of government, to serve *EVERYONE* who sits at their lunch counter.”
This proposal is no different than advocating that youtube be nationalized, to be controlled by the whims of whatever political party sits in power, or the demands of the left to be able to control content on talk radio and television programs. It’s a statist and authoritarian notion that would actually be poisonous to free speech.
“We cannot allow the government, or any other agency, to stop the right of Americans to be heard on all systems of communications.”
Yet you propose to do just that by putting government bureaucrats, rather than private interests, in control of judging how speech should be regulated. Nothing is stopping any private citizen with a different vision from competing with youtube, however, the same cannot be done once the government is put in charge. You cannot compete with the force of government.
“Under Nazism, the Corporations were Cronies of the Government, and there really was no line between where “Private” ended and “Government” began. We cannot allow such a system to take root here.”
Then why are you advocating moving in that direction by asking for more government control of corporations?