3 ms·

> Every minute someone watches them is a minute that they aren't watching a potential competitor Actually, they would prefer if all of the ad-blocking, refuse-

> Every minute someone watches them is a minute that they aren't watching a potential competitor Actually, they would prefer if all of the ad-blocking, refuse-to-pay customers would spend a lot of time on their competitor's websites.

xigoi 3y ago
In that case, why don't they allow competitors to host their videos?
- davisoneee 3y ago
  I took the parent's comment to mean they would rather 'free' viewers leech off other people's bandwidth, as if they're not Premium and not watching ads, they are just consuming bandwidth and costing resources. If they go to a competitor and block ads and consume bandwidth, then they are actively costing the competitor rather than costing Youtube for hosting. Youtube allowing competitors to host would just consume youtube's bandwidth but with the 'views' also going to the competitor's domain (so the competitor could then potentially get additional sponsor support for having 'eyeballs' on their domain).
  - xigoi 3y ago
    My point is that they intentionally obtained an effective monopoly on content, so it's weird of them to complain about too many people wanting to watch content there.
    - pratchett 3y ago
      How exactly did they obtain a monopoly on content? They don't name most content creators sign exclusivity agreements.
      - xigoi 3y ago
        I said an effective monopoly. Most people who create a video will automatically upload it to YouTube without even thinking about alternatives.