There used to be a pretty strong belief in the separation of media production and distribution, originating in the break up of the studio system. I'm not a hist

There used to be a pretty strong belief in the separation of media production and distribution, originating in the break up of the studio system. I'm not a historian or legal expert here by any stretch, but at some of the arguments supporting this were about ensuring the limited platforms (movie studios and broadcasters at the time) would have to allow competitive access for distribution of content. Google is in a position similar to being a major broadcaster- it is a gatekeeper of content, whether through search, YouTube, or ads. While Google started off with a pretty radical view of free speech that resulted on a pretty content, that has waned in the last 5-10 years. The most obvious of this is the de-monetization of YouTube channels. While I hardly disagree with their choice to distance themselves from many vitriolic personalities, I've also seen them demonetize science channels for doing experiments involving explosives and smaller channels they just didn't want to bother monitoring. The theoretical reason for this- their ad partners don't want their ads accidently running on offensive content.* There isn't any real alternative to YouTube. Searching for how to videos on google often results in a page of only YouTube videos. Content producers cannot directly negotiate interstitial ad content. The old-time concerns about a single broadcaster dominating the marketplace of ideas is absolutely applicable here. Breaking up Content, Search, and Ads would go a long way to ensure access to the platform. *As well they should, and I actually kind of LIKE that its become harder for offensive crazies to make money, but I'm providing the argument for breaking up the content, search, and ads.