There's another way of looking at things. The success or failure of a content sharing service is reflective of it's ability to give people what they want to see

There's another way of looking at things. The success or failure of a content sharing service is reflective of it's ability to give people what they want to see. If you don't like the content you're getting from a video service, you're going to go swap to another that does. In other words, growth implies content selection is working. But of course this leads to what I think is the real problem: network effects. The reason people use YouTube is because people use YouTube. What I said above is true in a world with sufficient competition, but YouTube has no meaningful competition. They constantly hurt their content creators but the creators stay there nonetheless because YouTube has the users. And YouTube has the users because YouTube has the content creators. --- By focusing on the content curation as the issue, I think we take a monopoly as granted. But there are ways you could help enable competition such as by removing barriers to content delivery. Imagine a public content delivery network where whitelisted providers (just to avoid it being used for unlawful content) can stream from. Pair this with rules against exclusivity for free content delivery services, and some way for content creators who upload the content to the service to cleanly opt in to allow their content to be used by various services for some standard contract (%revenue, one-off fee, etc), and away we go. Very off the cuff idea, but the idea is just to help foster more competition.