> Any use of others' property against their wishes conflicts with the right(s) of the owner. This is a distinction without a difference. There is a very big di

> Any use of others' property against their wishes conflicts with the right(s) of the owner. This is a distinction without a difference. There is a very big difference between your rights ending or being in conflict. > Popularity is fickle. The only examples I know for this are myspace and digg. I don't think popularity is that fickle once you have the content. > Because YouTube doesn't have a monopoly. [...] If your site is actually better at giving people what they want, it will win. Your problem is that YouTube actually is giving most people what they want. So how exactly is youtube now not a monopoly and it is possible to successfully compete with it? > You want to change what people want, which is naturally unpopular and likely doomed to fail. I want none of these things, I was explaining how rights to free speech relate to someone else's property. > In short, despite your complaints about "natural monopolies" and the difficulties of competing, you don't really want to compete with YouTube, just leverage its existing popularity to push your own agenda. Where is this even coming from? > The problem with this is that its popularity is a product of its audience-pleasing policies, not any sort of monopoly, natural or otherwise. If you did manage to force YouTube to follow your preferred policies it would become less and less popular until it was eventually be replaced by a competitor that looks more like the YouTube of today. I highly question your theory that Youtube's popularity is a product of it allowing extremist content. > but that's just exchanging one (non-)monopoly for a much larger monopoly, namely the government. Now you're just trying to be clever with words, but I'll bite. As I wrote before > Society has a vested interest in either regulating or breaking up monopolies. The government is democratically elected by society and highly regulated.