11 ms·

The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity. If Google/Youtu

The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity. If Google/Youtube were NOT a monopoly, they would have invested significant amount of money in customer support. However, there is zero. The only reason they get away with this is because they have a monopoly. They are saving hundreds of millions in support costs by not delivering any support. Unlike more overt monopolistic actions like raising prices, etc, what they do instead of increase their profits by taking away functionality that their customers should be receiving. The fact you can get all your work taken away because of fraud, and have no recourse is unacceptable. Yet there really is no viable alternative. I hope content creators band together and form a class action lawsuit against Google and break up their monopoly. It's disgusting.

bestnameever 6y ago
> The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity. I'm not sure one has anything to do with the other.
- rev0lutions 6y ago
  100% it does. it means they have no incentive to justify their actions to the market
  - kortilla 6y ago
    No, you can have a business model with no customer support without a monopoly. The potential lost sales are just part of the equation.
    - rev0lutions 6y ago
      i see what you're saying. yelp is a testament to your point. maybe it can be priced in even if its not a monopoly
- xmprt 6y ago
  If they weren't a monopoly then they wouldn't be able to get away with fraudulent activity like deleting someone's Google account or accepting false DMCA claims with no recourse or not paying out Ad Sense revenue because they flagged your account (without explaining why).
  - qtplatypus 6y ago
    The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do. However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      > The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do. No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels. > However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims. Can you give an example of someone they've sued for making false claims?
      - gundmc 6y ago
        This requires very minimal effort to find. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/19/20812144/youtube-copyright-strike-lawsuit-alleged-extortion-minecraft https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/19/20812144/youtube-copyrigh...
        monocasa 6y ago
        It's not the copyright claims that they had a problem with (or else they'd go after any of the other false copyright claims), it's using their platform for extortion. The "I'm going to file false copyright claims unless you pay me" thing.
      - 6y ago
Joeri 6y ago
They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not). In fact, google is the customer in this relationship, and they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why. It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer because that customer is the most profitable, would you pity them when they are fired by that customer? Or would you call them bad at business for failing to diversify?
- cung 6y ago
  I feel like this is the problem. The content creators and users don’t matter as they aren’t the customers.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Great point. Because people get something out of engaging in business with Google/YouTube/Facebook/etc. they think that they are the customer and that they should be entitled to certain things. They forget that they are the product, and the company is the customer. By using these platforms you are providing them with a source of revenue for free. These companies make money off content that you freely give them. Ad-revenue you receive doesn't even make you a contractor. It's basically like working for free and then being tossed something at the end for your efforts. There is no legal agreement or obligation to continue paying you. It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.
  - happymellon 6y ago
    > It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries. I disagree. I think that people have convinced themselves that they are customers of YouTube. There is a lot of projection on things like YouTube and Facebook, then people get mad because it actually isn't that after all.
tartoran 6y ago
I think so too. If they were not a monopoly they'd have content creators fleeing the platform for how they handle these type of situations but for many youtube provides a decent source of income. Content creators respected their part of the bargain and worked hard to build their channels and Google benefitted quite well. But they're not only not equal, one zero power and the other one has all of it.
- Bashmeplz 6y ago
  There have been attempts to fight the Youtube/Google platform, Patreon in a way is fighting against the Youtube ad revenue as a channels main source of income, so channels can survive on their own. Linus tech tips is creating their own video platform called Float-plane aiming to also do the same.
  - lethologica 6y ago
    I've seen another channel do this too, Corridor Digital. They're creating their own video platform, though it seems to be more so to get away from the traditional Hollywood model, but I guess that also has the benefit of not being beholden to the whims of YouTube. I wonder what the internet would look like if everyone did something like this rather than having all their content hosted on a central platform. What would the internet look like if video hosting platforms were as popular and as easy to set up / maintain as a blog platform like WordPress?
    - vbsteven 6y ago
      Won't this approach eventually lead to what happened with blogging? 10-15 years ago we all had our own wordpress/static/ghost blogs hosted on our own domains, and then Blogger, Medium and Substack entered the space with the added benefits of discoverability and a very significant chunk of the self-hosted blogs moved to those platforms. I feel that with YouTube we just skipped that initial self-hosted step and immediately went to the centralized platforms (Google Video, Vimeo and eventually YouTube)
      - 6y ago
plazmatic 6y ago
Yeah well, keep electing republicans and nothing will ever change. You think republicans and people like trump are anti-monopoly? Lol.
lbj 6y ago
> Unlike more overt monopolistic actions like raising prices, etc, what they do instead of increase their profits Now thats a keen insight and not a warning of a monopoly I was aware of. You're dead right.
aleksjess 6y ago
Why get so far with the proof? Looking at market share is far easier. Great point, though. They are saving millions - in order to provide actual customer support they would have to hire a lot of people from all around the world.
y42 6y ago
Google has a support infra structure, but it's only for big and/or paying customers. If you don't pay Google anything, you are not a customer. You are either a supplier, delivering content, or a user, consuming (free) content.
- rkachowski 6y ago
  why then is it that suppliers and users shouldn't expect support?
  - blueterminal 6y ago
    Why should they? You're using a free (and honestly, amazing) service, and you agreed to the terms and conditions. Don't like it - don't use it.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      >"Don't like it - don't use it." Applies equally to heroin. When are we legalising it?
      - mquarks 6y ago
        He also said 'free'
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        So if I hand out free drugs I won't be sent to jail?
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
I wonder - but I'm sceptical - if a competitor internet giant will come to the fore that offers similar services that google and youtube does, but whose USP would be better support, less aggressive copyright enforcement (it HAS to have copyright enforcement else they'll be torn apart in court).
pndy 6y ago
> The fact you can get all your work taken away because of fraud, and have no recourse is unacceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Google/YT TOS saying that by uploading materials user gives away its rights to these (or at least some rights)?
- amelius 6y ago
  There is an extortionate component to the ToS, yes.
jasonlfunk 6y ago
There has got to be a better word than Monopoly for companies like Google or YouTube. The barrier to enter the market is relatively low and there is almost no inherent lock-in to the platform. Everyone could stop using Google and YouTube today and switch to another platform. However, creators won’t because of the viewers and viewers won’t because of the creators. People could stop using Google today but most don’t, because Google is just so much better than everyone else as searching. Should Google/YouTube be regulated because people dislike what the company is doing, but just not enough to actually stop using their products.
scotty79 6y ago
Creators are not customers for youtube. They are bountiful, free resource.
tikiman163 6y ago
Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full support structure. Your assertion that Google has a monopoly in this market is wrong for several reasons. The first is that there is no market for Googke/YouTube to control. Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit and YouTube in particular is closer to meeting the requirements for being classified as a government protected service than an anti-trust concern. Second,nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. This is well known and is a large part of why they have virtually no competition. Third, YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so. Google doesn't make money from YouTube, and they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them. Recently the head of YouTube has been making weird even retarded decisions, but it's still a free service that operates in an application domain that basically can't make money by definition.
- tga_d 6y ago
  >Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services Do you have a source for this? I feel like Microsoft would have liked to have known that, back when they lost an antitrust case around a freely provided web browser. >Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit That's not what "non-profit" means. >nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. Nobody has been profitable, but that doesn't mean nobody is trying or nobody could if the market weren't anti-competitive. There is also plenty of case-law in the US establishing that just because an anti-competitive scheme wasn't profitable doesn't make it legal. Hell, a lot of anti-competitive activity works specifically because it's not profitable in the short term. >YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so. But not in the manner that they do. The point being made wasn't that their management of takedown notices is itself anti-competitive behavior, it's that the fact they don't have to change it to something more reasonable is evidence that they don't have any competition, which is indicative of a monopoly in the space. >they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them Again, source. I know YT is unlikely to be profitable right now, but I seriously doubt the purchase was a good-will gesture rather than a strategic long-term investment. I don't think there were a lot of people whose opinion of Google went up as a result of the purchase. >r......d Really? Was that necessary to make your point?
gogopuppygogo 6y ago
They have customer support. Their customer is an advertising company or brand. Hosting video from anyone in the world at up to 8k resolution is expensive. The product is your eyeballs. They revenue share with content creators who bring you eyeballs. They have lots of content creators. They use automation to manage the content at scale so they can be profitable.

bestnameever 6y ago

> The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity. I'm not sure one has anything to do with the other.

rev0lutions 6y ago
100% it does. it means they have no incentive to justify their actions to the market
- kortilla 6y ago
  No, you can have a business model with no customer support without a monopoly. The potential lost sales are just part of the equation.
  - rev0lutions 6y ago
    i see what you're saying. yelp is a testament to your point. maybe it can be priced in even if its not a monopoly
xmprt 6y ago
If they weren't a monopoly then they wouldn't be able to get away with fraudulent activity like deleting someone's Google account or accepting false DMCA claims with no recourse or not paying out Ad Sense revenue because they flagged your account (without explaining why).
- qtplatypus 6y ago
  The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do. However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    > The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do. No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels. > However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims. Can you give an example of someone they've sued for making false claims?
    - gundmc 6y ago
      This requires very minimal effort to find. https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/19/20812144/youtube-copyright-strike-lawsuit-alleged-extortion-minecraft https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/19/20812144/youtube-copyrigh...
      - monocasa 6y ago
        It's not the copyright claims that they had a problem with (or else they'd go after any of the other false copyright claims), it's using their platform for extortion. The "I'm going to file false copyright claims unless you pay me" thing.
    - 6y ago

Joeri 6y ago

They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not). In fact, google is the customer in this relationship, and they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why. It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer because that customer is the most profitable, would you pity them when they are fired by that customer? Or would you call them bad at business for failing to diversify?

cung 6y ago
I feel like this is the problem. The content creators and users don’t matter as they aren’t the customers.
Thorentis 6y ago
Great point. Because people get something out of engaging in business with Google/YouTube/Facebook/etc. they think that they are the customer and that they should be entitled to certain things. They forget that they are the product, and the company is the customer. By using these platforms you are providing them with a source of revenue for free. These companies make money off content that you freely give them. Ad-revenue you receive doesn't even make you a contractor. It's basically like working for free and then being tossed something at the end for your efforts. There is no legal agreement or obligation to continue paying you. It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.
- happymellon 6y ago
  > It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries. I disagree. I think that people have convinced themselves that they are customers of YouTube. There is a lot of projection on things like YouTube and Facebook, then people get mad because it actually isn't that after all.

tartoran 6y ago

I think so too. If they were not a monopoly they'd have content creators fleeing the platform for how they handle these type of situations but for many youtube provides a decent source of income. Content creators respected their part of the bargain and worked hard to build their channels and Google benefitted quite well. But they're not only not equal, one zero power and the other one has all of it.

Bashmeplz 6y ago
There have been attempts to fight the Youtube/Google platform, Patreon in a way is fighting against the Youtube ad revenue as a channels main source of income, so channels can survive on their own. Linus tech tips is creating their own video platform called Float-plane aiming to also do the same.
- lethologica 6y ago
  I've seen another channel do this too, Corridor Digital. They're creating their own video platform, though it seems to be more so to get away from the traditional Hollywood model, but I guess that also has the benefit of not being beholden to the whims of YouTube. I wonder what the internet would look like if everyone did something like this rather than having all their content hosted on a central platform. What would the internet look like if video hosting platforms were as popular and as easy to set up / maintain as a blog platform like WordPress?
  - vbsteven 6y ago
    Won't this approach eventually lead to what happened with blogging? 10-15 years ago we all had our own wordpress/static/ghost blogs hosted on our own domains, and then Blogger, Medium and Substack entered the space with the added benefits of discoverability and a very significant chunk of the self-hosted blogs moved to those platforms. I feel that with YouTube we just skipped that initial self-hosted step and immediately went to the centralized platforms (Google Video, Vimeo and eventually YouTube)
    - 6y ago

plazmatic 6y ago

Yeah well, keep electing republicans and nothing will ever change. You think republicans and people like trump are anti-monopoly? Lol.

lbj 6y ago

> Unlike more overt monopolistic actions like raising prices, etc, what they do instead of increase their profits Now thats a keen insight and not a warning of a monopoly I was aware of. You're dead right.

aleksjess 6y ago

Why get so far with the proof? Looking at market share is far easier. Great point, though. They are saving millions - in order to provide actual customer support they would have to hire a lot of people from all around the world.

y42 6y ago

Google has a support infra structure, but it's only for big and/or paying customers. If you don't pay Google anything, you are not a customer. You are either a supplier, delivering content, or a user, consuming (free) content.

rkachowski 6y ago
why then is it that suppliers and users shouldn't expect support?
- blueterminal 6y ago
  Why should they? You're using a free (and honestly, amazing) service, and you agreed to the terms and conditions. Don't like it - don't use it.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    >"Don't like it - don't use it." Applies equally to heroin. When are we legalising it?
    - mquarks 6y ago
      He also said 'free'
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        So if I hand out free drugs I won't be sent to jail?

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

I wonder - but I'm sceptical - if a competitor internet giant will come to the fore that offers similar services that google and youtube does, but whose USP would be better support, less aggressive copyright enforcement (it HAS to have copyright enforcement else they'll be torn apart in court).

pndy 6y ago

> The fact you can get all your work taken away because of fraud, and have no recourse is unacceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Google/YT TOS saying that by uploading materials user gives away its rights to these (or at least some rights)?

amelius 6y ago
There is an extortionate component to the ToS, yes.

jasonlfunk 6y ago

There has got to be a better word than Monopoly for companies like Google or YouTube. The barrier to enter the market is relatively low and there is almost no inherent lock-in to the platform. Everyone could stop using Google and YouTube today and switch to another platform. However, creators won’t because of the viewers and viewers won’t because of the creators. People could stop using Google today but most don’t, because Google is just so much better than everyone else as searching. Should Google/YouTube be regulated because people dislike what the company is doing, but just not enough to actually stop using their products.

scotty79 6y ago

Creators are not customers for youtube. They are bountiful, free resource.

tikiman163 6y ago

Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full support structure. Your assertion that Google has a monopoly in this market is wrong for several reasons. The first is that there is no market for Googke/YouTube to control. Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit and YouTube in particular is closer to meeting the requirements for being classified as a government protected service than an anti-trust concern. Second,nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. This is well known and is a large part of why they have virtually no competition. Third, YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so. Google doesn't make money from YouTube, and they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them. Recently the head of YouTube has been making weird even retarded decisions, but it's still a free service that operates in an application domain that basically can't make money by definition.

tga_d 6y ago
>Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services Do you have a source for this? I feel like Microsoft would have liked to have known that, back when they lost an antitrust case around a freely provided web browser. >Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit That's not what "non-profit" means. >nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. Nobody has been profitable, but that doesn't mean nobody is trying or nobody could if the market weren't anti-competitive. There is also plenty of case-law in the US establishing that just because an anti-competitive scheme wasn't profitable doesn't make it legal. Hell, a lot of anti-competitive activity works specifically because it's not profitable in the short term. >YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so. But not in the manner that they do. The point being made wasn't that their management of takedown notices is itself anti-competitive behavior, it's that the fact they don't have to change it to something more reasonable is evidence that they don't have any competition, which is indicative of a monopoly in the space. >they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them Again, source. I know YT is unlikely to be profitable right now, but I seriously doubt the purchase was a good-will gesture rather than a strategic long-term investment. I don't think there were a lot of people whose opinion of Google went up as a result of the purchase. >r......d Really? Was that necessary to make your point?

gogopuppygogo 6y ago

They have customer support. Their customer is an advertising company or brand. Hosting video from anyone in the world at up to 8k resolution is expensive. The product is your eyeballs. They revenue share with content creators who bring you eyeballs. They have lots of content creators. They use automation to manage the content at scale so they can be profitable.