Google - hit back

[gopurdue02]

After feeling angry about this all week I decided to write a letter....can't wait to see the response

Senator Donnelly,
I'm writing to you today in regards to recent change in service Alphabet Inc has made to content posted on Youtube as it relates to firearms. Specifically they are censoring content that is legal under laws in the united states as it relates to the various aspect of gun ownership (instructional how-to videos, historic combat footage, gun safety videos, etc). While I understand Alphabet is a private businesses and can remove any contents it wants: However the size of Alphabet market-share at 78.8% for multi-media content make it a default monopoly and anything they put forward in change in service is in essence censorship.

As a law abiding gun owner I am being directly impacted by this change as it make finding content directly related to servicing my firearms more difficult. I feel Alphabet is abusing their market dominance in both search and video content in support of a political agenda I do not agree with and not consistent with existing federal laws. I request you work with the justice department to identify if Alphabet is breaking any laws in implementing these changes in policy given their large market share. I would also request you look at ways to begin regulating large tech companies, such as Alphabet, that have such outsized market share in their markets to ensure we have vibrant competition in this country across emerging markets so no one company has this type of power.

 

[throttletony]

Nice letter - keep us posted.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Their virtual monopoly does raise an interesting point; given that they are now the defacto "public square" for video, how are they any different than say AT&T in the 80s? It was determined that they had a monopoly on their market and were subject to govt regulation, resulting in a breakup.

While I dont think we are dealing with anything that drastic, I do wonder if given their stupid market share they should be reigned in a bit. In other words, should they be required to follow the laws of the land from which users are accessing rather than arbitrary policies? e.g. due to the 2a you cant ban a channel in the US for otherwise lawful content relating to firearms, provided they are not violating the law. However since other countries dont have these protections, if you want to block those viewers from viewing gun porn, go ahead.

And this smacks of bakers rights too. Bakers cant discriminate, but you Youtube can? Your right to be gay has more weight than my bill of rights? (id say they are equal)

Its a bit of a sticky wicket, and definitely something that will need to be shaken out as the digital age moves forward. As private entities start to replace common carriers for data transfer, something will have to give if we expect to maintain rights. Its one thing to say "the 1st amendment doesnt apply here in Starbucks, you must leave". Its entirely something different for the virtually only medium for video sharing to say "we dont like your speech, so we are erasing it so nobody else can hear you"

And this right here is why I'm not an anarchist leaning Libertarian; .gov does still have SOME purpose. With private entities replacing the traditional communication carriers, there does need to be some regulation.

Wait, I just had an idea. Maybe if all the pro 2a folks just decide to self-identify as a gay gun channel, maybe this will all go away and they will stop banning because that would be bigotry?

 

[Tombs]

One of the only benefits government offers over anarchy is that it can be used to reign in monopolies.

This is one of the few cases where the problem is reaching a point of crisis. Freedom of speech means very little if there's no where left to make use of it.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

One of the only benefits government offers over anarchy is that it can be used to reign in monopolies.

This is one of the few cases where the problem is reaching a point of crisis. Freedom of speech means very little if there's no where left to make use of it.

That's what makes this one constitutionally interesting. Is this a private property case? Is it a first amendment case? A second amendment case? Any way it goes, it will at least be pretty darn interesting.

 

[hpclayto]

Good luck with that.

 

[wizardfitz]

I've stopped using Google long ago. Bing is my default search engine. Yes it doesn't have so it yourself video but I'm hoping a little can help

 

[Doublehelix]

It is a fine line between government control in our private businesses vs. blatant political censorship.