> Google is sitting on many billions of dollars it just doesn't want to spend (like $100B or so, I believe?). The money to pay for people is there. So now you

> Google is sitting on many billions of dollars it just doesn't want to spend (like $100B or so, I believe?). The money to pay for people is there. So now you are saying that the only companies that should host video are those that can afford to lose billions by manually checking every upload? Would this rule have applied to youtube before they became part of Google and had a few billion spare in the bank? OTOH the regulations around video hosting probably already make it almost impossible for a serious competitor to emerge