>"But Youtube isn't preventing the creators from hosting content elsewhere. They aren't hitting them with a slapp lawsuit. They aren't colluding with other websites to ban these videos."

Again, you're not refuting anything that anybody here actually thinks.

>"Well it is a little different. For the reason I mentioned in my post. Because youtube is the only game in town."

Exactly, which is why the devil's advocate routine is so tiring.

>"The problem, in my eyes, is that youtube can ban you, and there is no alternative place to host your videos with the same level of exposure. Having a competitive market place would solve this problem, and give video hosting sites an incentive to treat creators fairly."

I agree, but how could that actually be accomplished? If the government split up google/youtube like they split Bell, what would go to who? Would one of the Baby Youtube's get the "youtube" domain/brand? Or could they all? Would youtube.com just give you a "web portal" that impartially linked to all the various Baby Youtubes that were created by fracturing youtube? Would third party video websites unrelated to the youtube breakup get a place on that web portal?