I still have a tough time with this. YouTube, unlike other video sites, allows anyone to upload content for free. Other sites charge a fee for it but YouTube does not. Oh... by the way, the phone companies charged fees and got 100% of their income from these fees. So, the government had a reason to make sure the customers were not being overcharged. Plus, they really were monopolies where as it is not that hard to create a competing web site (ala BitChute) or indeed, you can host your own video site.
The way to solve this problem isn’t with laws. that’s what the fucking democrats would do. They wa to solve this is with competition. If you don’t like YouTube, go to Bitchute or one of the others.
Now... what IS wrong is the whole concept that these sites should not be held liable for their content. They are clearly publishers and should be held responsible as such. No need for new laws, just properly interpret and enforce the ones we have.
You tube is charging a fee any time they let an advertiser advertise over a video someone uploads. That is a fee. It's the same as TV stations charging a fee by running ads on the TV shows you watch.
At there center, the core issue in monopoly laws is when a company users their dominance in an industry for any anti-competitive purpose besides serving their customers or making a profit. The general proof of anticompetitive practices is when a company reduces it's profit to harm another company in a non-competitive business. Microsoft, when they went after NetScape for instance. Microsoft wasn't in the browser business, but they undercut NetScape's business by using their high revenue and dominance in that industry to squeeze Netscape out.
Clearly they way YouTube is undercutting PragerU and Alex Jones are anti-competitive practices in which they intentionally accept lower profits in order to damage another business. They are absolutely the epitome of what anti-monopolistic laws were designed to avoid.
YouTube is not competing with PragerU nor Alex Jones
The content producers are vendors to YouTube -- not customers. The people who view the videos are not customers either since they are not paying to view the videos. The customers to YouTube are the advertisers. The viewers are effectively YouTubes product. That product is produced with the help of its vendors.
It would be insanely wrong to force a manufacturer to use ingredients from vendors that supply "bad" (in the eyes of the manufacturer) items. That is exactly what you are demanding YouTube to do. You are demanding YouTube to accept ingredients to mix into their product that YouTube views as "bad" -- whatever that might mean in the eyes of YouTube.
As far as "monopoly" ... NO... its not a monopoly, not even close. Just because it has a large market share, just because no one wants to compete in the same space, doesn't make it a monopoly. There is nothing that prevents competition in the space that YouTube (or Facebook or Twitter for that matter).
Just because people want to drink pink lemonade doesn't make the pink lemonade producer a monopoly.
You don't want government entering this space. Government does nothing but grow and consume. Once started, within 10 years, it will regulate every piece of the internet there is. ... We've seen this countless times.
To repeat what I mentioned before...YouTube is a publisher and not a platform so it should not be allowed to hide behind the protections granted to a platform -- which is what the real problem is. YouTube can censor and still not be held accountable as a publisher should be.
I still have a tough time with this. YouTube, unlike other video sites, allows anyone to upload content for free. Other sites charge a fee for it but YouTube does not. Oh... by the way, the phone companies charged fees and got 100% of their income from these fees. So, the government had a reason to make sure the customers were not being overcharged. Plus, they really were monopolies where as it is not that hard to create a competing web site (ala BitChute) or indeed, you can host your own video site.
The way to solve this problem isn’t with laws. that’s what the fucking democrats would do. They wa to solve this is with competition. If you don’t like YouTube, go to Bitchute or one of the others.
Now... what IS wrong is the whole concept that these sites should not be held liable for their content. They are clearly publishers and should be held responsible as such. No need for new laws, just properly interpret and enforce the ones we have.
You tube is charging a fee any time they let an advertiser advertise over a video someone uploads. That is a fee. It's the same as TV stations charging a fee by running ads on the TV shows you watch.
At there center, the core issue in monopoly laws is when a company users their dominance in an industry for any anti-competitive purpose besides serving their customers or making a profit. The general proof of anticompetitive practices is when a company reduces it's profit to harm another company in a non-competitive business. Microsoft, when they went after NetScape for instance. Microsoft wasn't in the browser business, but they undercut NetScape's business by using their high revenue and dominance in that industry to squeeze Netscape out.
Clearly they way YouTube is undercutting PragerU and Alex Jones are anti-competitive practices in which they intentionally accept lower profits in order to damage another business. They are absolutely the epitome of what anti-monopolistic laws were designed to avoid.
YouTube is not competing with PragerU nor Alex Jones
The content producers are vendors to YouTube -- not customers. The people who view the videos are not customers either since they are not paying to view the videos. The customers to YouTube are the advertisers. The viewers are effectively YouTubes product. That product is produced with the help of its vendors.
It would be insanely wrong to force a manufacturer to use ingredients from vendors that supply "bad" (in the eyes of the manufacturer) items. That is exactly what you are demanding YouTube to do. You are demanding YouTube to accept ingredients to mix into their product that YouTube views as "bad" -- whatever that might mean in the eyes of YouTube.
As far as "monopoly" ... NO... its not a monopoly, not even close. Just because it has a large market share, just because no one wants to compete in the same space, doesn't make it a monopoly. There is nothing that prevents competition in the space that YouTube (or Facebook or Twitter for that matter).
Just because people want to drink pink lemonade doesn't make the pink lemonade producer a monopoly.
You don't want government entering this space. Government does nothing but grow and consume. Once started, within 10 years, it will regulate every piece of the internet there is. ... We've seen this countless times.
To repeat what I mentioned before...YouTube is a publisher and not a platform so it should not be allowed to hide behind the protections granted to a platform -- which is what the real problem is. YouTube can censor and still not be held accountable as a publisher should be.