Technology

These are some very pretty words that express ideas without much self-reflection on why the ideas might be bad.

I mean, I suppose you did say it yourself that you can't trust the US government... but why would you trust ANY government? You know why I trust Google more than any government? I understand Google's motivations ($$$). Put something into the hands of government and suddenly that thing is burdened by the desires of every politician and their special interest financiers.

"Place it in the hands of something like the UN" would mean some international body I assume. Comprised of and led by whom exactly? And also, who would fund the thing? You suggest nationalization, so.. taxpayers? Sure, here's your $99/year Degooglebase access ~~fee~~ tax I guess? And beyond just making sure there's enough money to keep the lights on, we need to make sure there's enough money to pay creators. After all, YouTube isn't just a library. It's an economy larger than some countries and there would be consequences to destabilizing that economy. People aren't just posting content for the love of the shared experience.

Please don't take what I'm saying here to be a defense of Google. Google is a shitty company for so many reasons. But advocating for nationalization of YouTube is just a horrifically bad idea in such manner as it was presented.

But - all is not lost. First: for the creators you enjoy - find ways to support them other than Google. Make it possible for them to continue when YouTube stops being lucrative enough.

Second: find, use, and advocate for the use of alternative services. There is no single site that is going to be able to replace YouTube. It simply isn't going to happen unless PornHub wants to step up to the game and create their own SFW site YouTube-killer. They have the infrastructure and capacity to host and share absolutely massive amounts of video and have the business capabilities to accept income and pass it on to creators on a large scale. But that's an entirely different discussion.

Best to look at things differently. Like the Fediverse and the internet itself, it might be better off if the platform were distributed.

Sorry to burst your little bubble but the UN charter specifically states it is an intergovernmental organization whose stated purposes are to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and serve as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

As much as some may want to believe the UN is some sort of «Global Supreme Court», it is not. It mainly functions by consensus of all other nation (including those who explicitly chooses to abstain). Therefore, by making the UN somehow responsible for the “backend”, as you have said, or as the custodian of the entire repository/library of videos uploaded to YouTube, every member nations would then have their own priorities on what to "keep" and what to "remove" from the repository/library. Since the UN works principaly by consensus only a very small subset of all the videos will be kept as being universally non-controversial. Hence, the majority of videos will be irrecoverably erased.

Perhaps you meant a NGO (non-governmental organization) or a non-profit organization such as the Internet Archive. However, storage and maintenance for such a vast collection of large media (videos) is non-trivial and expensive that very few non-profit could administer.

Alternatively, with a fediverse-like protocol, everyone will be responsible to host their own videos and also videos they consider important/valuable to archive and/or help distribute. Thus, no single point of control and no need to "nationalize" YouTube. Of course it is hard and complex, nevertheless it is only the first step toward a more resilient and a more equitable video sharing/distribution infrastructure.

Curiously, that would mean a peer-tube network of server instances for which YouTube becomes a frontend.