Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Is YouTube A Private Company, if so why do People Care if they regulate their content?
was just watching this video about a lot of people upset about content regulation and I'm not a tubeyuber so I'm not really sure about Youtube's rules but I have always been under the impression that it was a private company that played what it wants and doesn't play what it didn't want to. However the video I saw made it sound like youtube was some federal government program that had to cater to everyone's taste... so which is it?
Comments
Yeah I think it's a private company so it's up to them to decide what they want on their platform. However - they are so big they are pretty much like a monopoly and that means they have a level of power to control what people see or don't see - so that's why some folks want them to be regulated in the way that other monopolies are.
Not sure if this is a Global issue but my cellphone goes off 10 times a day with scams intended to con me.
The call probably originates out of the country but the cell or phone companies provide services to make the call appear to be from a local exchange (area code in the US).
It's distinct fraud and the cell company could easily block this use of the network and probably save a lot of people grief but it appears they prefer the service revenue.
I would like to see public networks subjected to basic regulation to protect the general well being of most people. Prevent fraud. Stop fanatically oriented groups from spreading hate speech, etc. Google should self regulate with this intent.
We have the 1st Amendment to protect free speech but I'm OK with adding details about malicious or fraudulent use of speech to do harm or incite violence.
Thanks for asking. Balancing personal freedoms, human rights and social order is tricky but we should try and not just let anyone put anything out there for their personal gain. We're going to see a lot more politically motivated manipulations of public opinion for effective power gains and social unrest for foreign countries. Unfortunately, some with power now see the pattern working for their interests... go figure. "Protecting and defending the constitution" is an oath without consequences for breaking it.
(Got my 2 cents in before this thread gets closed.)
Energy and Phone companies....
I assume the number of people or # of population that the company interacts with determines the public good and if legislation in needed to "protect" the people.
I know certain things I search don't come up and there is a trend of things put on my feed.
It is safe to say there is a trend socially.
The issue really is front and center after the talk of Russian involvement in US election and roll the internet plays in effecting outcomes.
I guess from a constitutional perspective it is also a slippery slope.
But with things like hate speech we have officially ventured into extraordinary times of political tech and social evolution.
I won't go any further than this in order to avoid conflict on the forum.
We all know what is happening with social media and censorship with certain agenda and promoting of ideologies aligned with that of certain groups.
Really people need to get a back bone and not be such bitches with when someone says something about them.
"Governments should regulate private companies for the public good"... that somehow sounds as if governments had any more or less interest in the public good than private companies
a nice idea in theory. But is that necessarily true? And an additional problem with governments is that they have even more power than companies.
Just my 2 cents and food for thought
It’s a legitimately tough call to make. There are sound reasons why the government should stay the hell out and let these private companies exercise their discretion, and there’s sound arguments for the fact that the damn companies are so big and so woven into the culture now that it does appear highly discriminatory and anti free speech when they start banning views they don’t agree with. Very very tough call. And frankly, the solution, if there is one, is probably an as yet unheard of third way of doing things. Because I don’t like either option really, government intervention, or gratuitous “thought policing”. We have to figure something else out. These are shitty options
They are definitely responsible in regards to preventing their platform from being used to spread hate speech and such, which has nothing to do with "catering to a specific taste".
The constitution has instructions for regulating the POTUS.
Does 10,000 lies reach the threshold of a high crime or misdemeanor?
Certainly, obstruction of justice should.
But following the constitutional instruction is my concern. The protections seem to be missing in the legislature and the courts.
There's a policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Not a law or anything in the constitution.
A policy written by a lawyer in the executive branch I believe.
Mueller wrote he couldn't clear him and stated this idiotic policy to explain why he can't be more
articulate. All he will do is write "He not innocent."
"Total exoneration."
10,000 lies. I'll bet he can double that before the next inauguration.
I thought google owned YouTube
Google’s tracking of us is as creepy as hell. They reinforce biases as that gives them more money. For most of us this is relatively inert and is no different from us choosing our newspaper that has a similar political bias to our own and in our case usually results in us being shown lots of geeky synthesiser videos.
But Let’s say you have an extremist viewpoint. In the past you would be relatively unheard. You would need to find like minded morons and go to physical meetings to reinforce your views and become more extreme.
Today these views are spoon fed to you by Google’s algorithms. Facebook are even worse. As google know so much about you when you log into YouTube you are bombarded with content aimed directly at your interests. This is great for google as you will be watching more ads targeted at your demographic. Which means more money for google/Alphabet.
The problem arises when they do nothing to prevent the spread of misinformation and in fact help people with extreme views spread their bile.
‘Proper’ news is regulated in most of the free world. The BBC aren’t allowed to show ‘fake news’ and are supposed to be unbiased. (And yet are still accused of being too left wing by the right wing press!)
Google let untrue videos propagate on YouTube totally unchecked. This allows the fringe people to have a big voice and also can skew normal voting in elections very effectively. Just look at the interference that helped Trump and the Brexiteers.
Yet They are also incredibly quick to take down a video that uses unlicensed music. So if you upload a video about how vaccines make you gay that’s fine. Put some Drake in the background and it’ll be taken down in a second. And don’t dare show a nipple!
My point is they have ways to stop things being seen when it suits them.
When it comes to things like interfering in elections and spreading dangerous myths that result in the rise of measles then they really should be held accountable.
That’s not to say they should censor everything but they actively push these kinds of videos on people. The recent faked video of Nancy Pelosi went viral in no time. Both google and Facebook refused to do anything about it saying it didn’t violate their policies. That’s insane.
If you set up a new google account, log in in a wifi network you’ve never used before on a new device that you’ve never used before and go to YouTube and search for Apollo landings it won’t be long before most of the videos being auto played are conspiracy theory ‘moon landings are fake’ videos.
I’m not saying they should be banned or censored but I don’t think google should be allowed to actively push this kind of stuff either. They are in charge of their own algorithms. It would be easy for them to tag something as objectionable or untrue and limit it’s showing in search results or autoplay cue.
Just writing stuff like this makes me look like a tin hat wearing but job. That’s the dangerous part of this. THey have normalised the worst aspects of society.
I agree, but propaganda rules.
+1 @klownshed ^ though Instagram (Facebook) seems to me to be even worse of the lot! Running my own business I have a laptop for business and keep ipad for pleasure - buy something for business and up it pops on Instagram on the iPad - never the twain shall meet except online! My other thoughts are that we have laws in real life to help stop discrimination - sexual or ethnic etc. These laws don’t apply online - makes me wonder (tin hat time) if the powers that be are hoovering up our online actions and compiling one big database on our character profiles. Still, by being here and online I partake of the good stuff and try and stay away from crap! Soap box back in the shed!
To answer the Original question, I think a lot of people care because Google can change the rules under them and obliterate a revenue stream overnight. YT is just a hobby for me but some people build a business around it. Closer to home, it’s like Apple pulling the plug on App Store Affiliates.
ok so this makes sense but it's not Youtube's fault if everybody and their grandmother decided to jump on youtube and make it their career, I'm also not of the mind that the size of youtube is that much of an important factor either because it's nobody's fault that anyone decided to support their family by being a youtuber. I have nothing against youtubers and get a lot of benefit from the platform but I also get a lot of benefit from Starbucks, and every other private business that I use in my daily life etc..
you can't walk into someone's private business , no matter how big it is and act like you own it that's just ludicrous Imo, it doesn't stop me from having empathy for anyone who loses a job or can't pay a bill but seriously if you want to act like you own a business you have to start your own business and starting your own business in somebody else's house is not the definition of starting your own business.
now on top of that if any of these people are making a living from their freedom forged right to hatred that makes it make even less sense to me.... this isn't even political in the least, how many of us on this forum would let someone come into our house and sell hatred while acting like they own our house, it just doesn't make sense to me. I understand that people have deep pockets full of feelings and all that but you can't honestly claim to be a serious businessman or business woman while claiming someone else's domain as your own... it's not about politics, religion, or size of a business, it's simply not your business, somebody owns youtube but that somebody is not you.
If there are so many youtubers who have an issue with how youtube runs it's own business then why don't they start their own business somewhere else like Their OwnTube or something. How complex could it possibly be, if I hated spaghetti (which I love) and a million signed up to my 'No Spaghetti' network to sell all of the wonderful spaghetti recipes in the world it would probably piss me off and I would be like Hey get those damn spaghetti recipes off my network, it's just common sense.
why would we need anyone to come in and regulate common sense?
@tja there's no need for regulation -- just trust the power of the market!
If your phone company restricts who you can talk to, there will soon be ANOTHER phone company that DOESN'T, so you can just switch 🙂
(the magic of the market: if there's demand for something (unrestricted phone companies), it will be fulfilled. If someone is offering a shit product (restricted Internet access), they will go out of business).
No need for Rules and Regulations! 😉
I know, I probably watched too many of Hans Werner Sinn's lectures 😉
the only reason those things can be said is because the rules of the private companies you use cater to what you want, if they didn't then you wouldn't be able to say those things.... every private company has the same power of choice to a large degree
re: google, facebook, apple.... the thing is that no-one Is entitled to a replacement of a better version of any company are they, you could say that about anything. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with wanting a better version of anything, I'm only saying that I don't see where the entitlement of having one built for you buy somebody else unless you paid for it or commissioned it or unless a really nice buddy built a company to your specifications
I’m sure Nokia, Yahoo and MySpace thought they were not easy to replace by better versions back in their day.
Depends who owns the cables. So for example here BT own everything, and other companies ‘rent’ bandwidth on those lines.
Problem is, they are then reliant on BT, who can easily beat their service by giving themselves faster connections and dragging their feet when their competitors have issues. As we discovered a few years back.
Ditto Google etc. They control the internet that the average Joe interacts with. So for example they can give priority to favoured businesses.
The internet is not a level playing field for businesses, and hasn’t been for some time.
The issue I have with YouTube however is that the interface seems to have been tweaked to make it more crap, every time I use it.
Yes, but that itself is already a result of government regulation, i.e. the government has forced BT to let bandwidth to other companies, which they would normally never have done. If that regulation didn't exist, then other companies would have built their OWN infrastructure.
But that's normal human nature. People give priority to stuff their favor. It's been like that since the stone age
The universe is a level playing field from the big bang onwards...
the only thing that can make it "un-level" is regulation!
That's a technical topic now but yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. Each time I use Youtube on a phone, I just shake my head in disbelief how such a powerful (and, you would think, technically competent) company can come up with such a buggy and convoluted mess.
Au contraire, YT has actively encouraged it by providing ways to monetise content, so they have some responsibility.
You want to get real scary, see how much of the web relies on Amazon Web Services. 😮
Are you being serious or ironic? I hope ironic. But if not....
Faith in free markets to do the right thing is largely rooted in 17th and 18th century economic and political philosophy. A time long before complex linear dynamics and chaos theory were known. An underlying tenet is that individuals are rational actors and that to the degree that particular individuals are not rational actors their influence is drowned out by their being a small minority.
We know this view of systems to be quite simply wrong, but there is such an esthetic appeal to the notion that individuals do the right thing if unimpeded by external forces that this wishful thinking persists.
When these theories emerged, the scale of damage that an individual business entity could create was minimal. Industry existed on a small scale. Monopolies were largely local and there were always some wealthy entities that might be able raise money to mount some sort of competition.
The possible impact of large monopolies wasn’t clear to many until the 20th Century when it became clear that a monopoly or cartel could come into existence and evolve to such gargantuan proportions that creating a competitive entity is either not possible or exceedingly unlikely.
The impact of such monopolies is often not clear until certain conditions arise.
For example, a virtual monopoly on internet video streaming or news dissemination would have been inconsequential in 1998. Not enough people relied on those as sources of information to be impactful. Today, however, the world is different and such monopolies could have significant negative impact on world events.
The notion expressed up-thread that corporations have less power than governments is somewhat mis-leading. Unlike governments in democratic countries, which can be influenced by citizens, corporations of large-enough size are not realistically subject to public pressure until it emerges on a very large scale.
Companies like YouTube and Facebook are interesting because they thrive on “engagement”. So there are cases where their profit is maximized by allowing hate speech (however you define it) and propaganda to foment. They benefit financially (because it increases engagement) from hate speech and propaganda and content intended to incite actions that can be highly impactful.
So, I think it is naive to simply trust free markets. Free markets can result in entities that poison rivers and oceans and the air and our minds without our even noticing until it is unrealistic in the short-term to expect balancing competition.
Oh, the other thing about economic theory..it is often based on the notion that success of an economic system is based solely on economic efficiency...with no moral content or any consideration of the well-being of the society’s well-being. They assume (usually without stating it) that economic efficiency is somehow equated with social well-being. I think history is pretty clear that this is a mistaken assumption.
@espiegel123 and @tja have already covered this but just to add my response: it's not practical for there to be multiple companies running cabling under the streets - it'd be complicated to maintain and the disruption would be ridiculous - it's bad enough already with streets being regularly dug up for various service issues.
And of course BT was a public corporation at one stage and so enjoyed billions of pounds of government funding, so has an unfair advantage over other companies.
In an ideal, fair world, the main infrastructure should be nationalised, with telecom companies renting bandwidth from it, since this is now considered an essential service.
Not when it becomes a monopoly, and has control outside of the service it is providing. It's not fair on new, small businesses, and it's not good for consumers.
When businesses start to accrue more money and resources than some whole countries, then there's something seriously amiss going on.
I think the point of contention, is if a private company that provides mass communication for individuals to express their own opinions using their own content, retains a right to regulate "its own company image" relative to the nature of the opinions it allows people to publish on its distribution platform.
What I find interesting about this question, isn't so much the rights of the corporation.
For me it's more about the question of how modern mass communication technologies that have never existed before in human history, might effect how the human mind develops within these new mass communication environments.
For 100,000 years, human evolution adjusted people's neurobiology to thinking with only a relatively small range of information types that were of a kind that people thought "worthy" of passing down to the next generation.
Suddenly, within a single generation, people can now have their minds exposed to enormous qualities of both "good" and "crap" information.
But the legal free speech rights people have, are back from the days when the broadest methods people had for influencing others, was either printed or spoken words, with limited reach.
Anyway... Here's a quote from some old caselaw that I think is interesting.....
249 U.S. 47 (1919)
SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES. BAER v. UNITED STATES.
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1919296249us471292
I completely understand and agree but 'encouragement' is something that can be said for almost anyone or anything... I don't believe that youtube can be blamed for telling someone to jump off a cliff and that person going and jumping off a cliff.... or eating Tide pods etc... of course I'm not talking about little children, but as an adult if adults don't take responsibility for what they physically do then all bets are off from the get go
Youtube is like a Mall that wants to have whatever stores it wants to have in that mall... if Youtube only wants to have hello kitty stores in their mall then I don't see the problem . However I see a big problem in people screaming hey I want my G.I. Joe store in your hello kitty mall and I should have the right to tell you that you can't have a hello kitty mall...
I don't think that is how having your own business works...
Now if the mall was subsidized by the people complaining then I would have a completely different opinion, but my opinion would be based on the subsidy percentage... in other words however much say you have would equate to the percentage of subsidy you provide.
a lot of really great thoughts in this thread
mine maybe ot (or not) ...
the freedom to speek...
it's an uneven legal playground [by design or not is a distraction]
though ain't it strange, the change, from "equality" to "diversity" ?
the way language is made to dance
it takes two sides to create a trip wire out of symbols
one to weld it in [hate/anger/0pp0site]
another [/eagle system] to hold this as 'the' definition
though some language certainly seems hate filled
should we put a lid on this? or will that increase the pressure?
should we look at the wound?
……………………
how//did//these companies gather the wealth?
that spotify earns more bankers money than the musicians?
the delivery not the goods - a transport network
is youtube the biggest train on a track built by us?
what are our rights/access to travel?