So what's the solution? Limit who can use Youtube? Charge for usage of Youtubes? So only those who can afford it are able to get tutorials on how to fix their sink and tie a tie but poor people can keep getting poorer?
No, I think success in large platforms has depended on being able to automate away human problems, ignoring the harm that causes. We need to mandate human moderation and customer service, as well as a robust and transparent appeal process. And we need to strip Section 230 immunity so platforms have real liability behind their content decisions.
Platforms above a certain scale will either require enough manpower to handle them appropriately, or will break down at a certain size and lead to a wider market.
>So only those who can afford it are able to get tutorials on how to fix their sink and tie a tie but poor people can keep getting poorer?
does the same logic also apply to the tools you use to fix the sink? I really have to laugh about this borderline gaslighting attempt that Google and Facebook have come up with to justify their ad monopolies. As if having to pay for information is any more objectionable than having to pay for anything else. The only reason they've concocted this terrible argument is because free stuff is how they get their fangs into everyone.
It was just an example, the point is that these services have democratized access to information and have greatly helped bring up less wealthy people. Ad-based model has it's fair share of problems, but being able to give everyone, even the poor who wouldn't able to afford it, access to information that can help them improve their lives, is easily the best argument for that model.
