Yep.
Then instead of a boycott or avoiding YT - a herculean amount of time and effort is spent trying to find ways to still use YT.
"They're bad. They're evil. Ads are unethical.", followed by /me plays next video
Then instead of a boycott or avoiding YT - a herculean amount of time and effort is spent trying to find ways to still use YT.
"They're bad. They're evil. Ads are unethical.", followed by /me plays next video
YT worked hard to become a monopoly, so they should accept the limitations and pushback that comes with being a monopoly. (IOW, as a monopoly they shouldn't be allowed to say: these are our terms, take it or leave it.)
I must disagree.
Microsoft was ruled a monopoly in United States v. Microsoft Corp despite the existence of Linux, BSD, Solaris, and other alternatives.
The FTC is currently accusing Amazon of being an unlawful monopoly despite the existence of thousands of small competitors.
Please explain to me how YouTube is the sole supplier of a good or service and how they use high barriers of entry to prevent potential competitors from joining? How do Vimeo, Dailymotion, TikTok, Twitch, Rumble, etc continue to exist?
It may not be to the market, because the politicians could have hosted that declaration video elsewhere but that's not the users' concern. They could ask owners to post their videos elsewhere, but that's not the users' choice.
The politicians are putting the information in the wrong place. Why not fix that?