5 ms·

> Video streaming is not a monopoly It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. There were plenty of competitors back then, just

> Video streaming is not a monopoly It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. There were plenty of competitors back then, just as now, and yet the Sherman Antitrust Act happened. The network power of these organizations makes them monopolies even aside from market share. In Sherman era anti-trust, "Build your own rail network" would not have flown as an argument, because it was clear that coercive actions to force people into a different network were problematic. The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. You can read the Sherman Act, court opinions during that time, and the argument of it removing centralization of power. The "predatory pricing" argument is a recent invention, ironically created with right-wing judicial activism, and neither historical or textual in nature.

bduerst 5y ago
>It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity make it a monopoly. Standard oil was the only accessible supplier in the market in many places. The video streaming and hosting market has many easily accessible suppliers wherever there is internet access. >The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. Whether or not the government can regulate a monopoly is not being debated here. Nobody is talking about that straw man.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. You host somewhere else and YouTube isn't going to surface your video to their users, and neither is Google since they're the same company. This isn't a problem if there are dozens of video hosting services or search engines that all have equal market share, but there aren't.
  - zwirbl 5y ago
    So discovery is now a basic right and Youtube must enable everyones boring or inciting videos to be discovered? Can't you just share a link on $SOCIAL_MEDIA like others do?
  - awb 5y ago
    You don’t have a right to have your views displayed on YouTube any more than you have a right to have your opinion piece published in the New York Times. Private companies are free to curate their content as they see fit and you can choose to consume it or not. These independent content creators and journalists can all self host. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that every view gets maximum amplification on private networks. It means that the government won’t take steps to repress the speech, which they aren’t.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    >It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace make it a monopoly. You are not entitled to being discovered in competitive markets, and forcing suppliers to host your content is anti-competitive.

bduerst 5y ago

>It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity make it a monopoly. Standard oil was the only accessible supplier in the market in many places. The video streaming and hosting market has many easily accessible suppliers wherever there is internet access. >The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. Whether or not the government can regulate a monopoly is not being debated here. Nobody is talking about that straw man.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. You host somewhere else and YouTube isn't going to surface your video to their users, and neither is Google since they're the same company. This isn't a problem if there are dozens of video hosting services or search engines that all have equal market share, but there aren't.
- zwirbl 5y ago
  So discovery is now a basic right and Youtube must enable everyones boring or inciting videos to be discovered? Can't you just share a link on $SOCIAL_MEDIA like others do?
- awb 5y ago
  You don’t have a right to have your views displayed on YouTube any more than you have a right to have your opinion piece published in the New York Times. Private companies are free to curate their content as they see fit and you can choose to consume it or not. These independent content creators and journalists can all self host. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that every view gets maximum amplification on private networks. It means that the government won’t take steps to repress the speech, which they aren’t.
- bduerst 5y ago
  >It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace make it a monopoly. You are not entitled to being discovered in competitive markets, and forcing suppliers to host your content is anti-competitive.