>By that logic, though, it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't be Net Neutrality regulation.
The logic here depends on scale. YouTube is a service among services; ISPs are utilities that provide access to other services. It's much easier to set up your own video streaming website than it is to set up an ISP. As it stands, there no risk for ISPs with the content they carry, since their subscribers have no choice to leave them. They do not risk their brand or advertising dollars. That is why they ought to be neutral to the content they carry.
If there comes a time in America where an ISP risks losing subscribers to their competitor because they allow LiveLeak or Porn or dragon ball z gifs, let 'em go wild with the filters.
Just because someone ought to do something, doesn't mean it should be codified into law. Laws should be made to solve an actual problem that people are already having, not to force someone to do what we think they should.
Also, YouTube isn't just a service among services. They are, effectively, the only service. YouTube's subscribers have no better option, because there isn't much content anywhere else; YouTube's content creators have no better option, because there aren't any subscribers anywhere else.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem, that nobody has been able to solve. Coming up with $200k to start an ISP is easier than breaking into online video streaming.
I think our difference in opinion here can be summarized as what constitutes “freedom.” You mention that YouTube is effectively the only game in town because it’s difficult to get subscribers or views for speech. But that is not what is protected as freedom of speech.
There are other video platforms. Vimeo. PornHub. Facebook. Twitter. Uploading your videos to a private server and sending out links. Those things are not restricted, and those lack of restrictions mean free speech is still alive and well in the age of YouTube removals.
You are arguing not for the right to speak, but the right to be heard and the right to have that speech monetized, none of which is or should be guaranteed.
In the US, we use the attention market as a proxy for government restriction on speech. In the same way that the government should not be in the business of arbitrarily shutting down unpopular speech, it should not be in the business of forcing corporations to promote it by using their resources.
>In the same way that the government should not be in the business of arbitrarily shutting down unpopular speech, it should not be in the business of forcing corporations to promote it by using their resources.
I would agree. My real argument is that this should be applied consistently. There is no material difference between a content provider, such as YouTube, and an ISP. If one is required to carry content that they don't want to, both should be required to.
The logic here depends on scale. YouTube is a service among services; ISPs are utilities that provide access to other services. It's much easier to set up your own video streaming website than it is to set up an ISP. As it stands, there no risk for ISPs with the content they carry, since their subscribers have no choice to leave them. They do not risk their brand or advertising dollars. That is why they ought to be neutral to the content they carry.
If there comes a time in America where an ISP risks losing subscribers to their competitor because they allow LiveLeak or Porn or dragon ball z gifs, let 'em go wild with the filters.