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.
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.