[KirinDave]

> Not true. Almost all modern speech doesn't take place on Youtube or any Google platform. It's possible to broadcast without Google, publish without Google, disseminate without Google, gather without Google, dissent without Google, make phone calls without Google, chat, email, text, audio, video, everything - literally all forms of speech and expression are possible without Google, both on and off the internet.

I actually challenge you to find a credible alternative to Youtube that is a genuine contender and doesn't rely on webtorrent (which would very much DOS the entire internet into tiny fragment networks if it tried to service Youtube level volume).

Who's the alternative? The closest thing is broadcast television, which is under extremely tight government regulation.

[krapp]

>I actually challenge you to find a credible alternative to Youtube that is a genuine contender and doesn't rely on webtorrent (which would very much DOS the entire internet into tiny fragment networks if it tried to service Youtube level volume).

Yeah, see, you're using subjective weasel words like "credible" and "genuine" and assuming that no site operating at anything less than Youtube's scale would be effective - yet plenty of other streaming sites demonstrably do exist and have communities and users.

Even most videos on Youtube don't even have nearly the traffic that would necessitate that scale - "youtube level volume" isn't necessary. Convenient, cheap, reliable, but not necessary.

So... Vimeo? Twitch? Dailymotion? Metacafe? Veoh? Pornhub? The Internet Archive? Whatever they use in Asia? Most social media sites that let you upload videos directly? There seem to be a few here[0].

Until Youtube can stop other streaming sites from existing, it's absurd to say they have any real control outside their own platform. They're popular, but that's it - popularity can wane. They don't control video distribution or streaming the way JP Morgan controlled the railroads, they don't control the infrastructure nor can they enforce monopoly control over the internet, and they certainly do not control "the pathways of modern speech."

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services

[KirinDave]

> Yeah, see, you're using subjective weasel words like "credible" and "genuine" and assuming that no site operating at anything less than Youtube's scale would be effective - yet plenty of other streaming sites demonstrably do exist and have communities and users.

Okay, but they don't do archival at even a fractional scale. It's true other streaming contenders exist. They are all much smaller than youtube.

> So... Vimeo?

Doesn't really compete in the same space anymore. It's a lot more focused on corporate offerings.

> Twitch?

Big site. Run by a massive company that actually has the networking capacity to make a competitor. But doesn't do archival of all content. That makes it a lot, lot harder.

Edit: Don't get me wrong! Twitch is an incredibly impressive piece of work despite its technical flaws. They do things Youtube has failed to do. But the long tail of content distribution they need to deal with is smaller, and that redefines the problem the resolve.

> Dailymotion? Metacafe? Veoh?

All of these aren't really competitors to Youtube, now are they? Dailymotion is more of a hosting service for corporate offerings as I see it. I also think you pay them for hosting, but I'm happy to be corrected about this.

> The Internet Archive?

What?

> Pornhub?

I know a bunch of SWE and SRE there and they're good folks. But uh... well if they want to explain to you how this is misguided I will let them.

> Until Youtube can stop other streaming sites from existing, it's absurd to say they have any real control outside their own platform.

YouTube is bigger than any 3 of your other alternatives combined, and that's ignoring the fact that they're doing broadcast TV now. The only site on your list that has any credibility in the space of user-generated content is Twitch, and they don't do archival unless you're a Partner still, right? It's been awhile since I've run my twitch channel.

> They're popular, but that's it - popularity can wane.

The following is my opinion:

I have become much harder on youtube since joining Google because I learned how absurdly difficult it would be to do what Youtube does. You've gotta be an international mega-corp to compete with what they're doing. While I am enjoying understanding how the internet actually works, I also confess to a certain degree of despair over its reality.

YouTube could grow to meet its demand because of its affiliation with Google. Other sites would need to build a global scale supercomputer with network to match to do what Youtube and Youtube TV does.

Further, the internet itself cannot handle the amount of media streaming users want to do. That's why otherwise noble ideas like PeerTube can't be used to route around this damage. And as we've seen with search and human interaction, the network effects of concentrating media all in one place are just too overwhelming.

Perhaps you feel more optimism about it. If so, I encourage you to try. As it stands, only Amazon's Twitch could possibly pivot into this position and they seem disinclined to do so for now.

[root_axis]

Why do they have to be a "genuine contender"? I get that the discoverability of YouTube's platform is desirable to creators, but why is it important at a societal level that creators have access to that?

[KirinDave]

What will ultimately determine if Youtube is a monopoly or not is if there are credible contenders of similar size that aren't just reselling Youtube with a branded player.

The public demand itself is enough. Search for Google is already subject to regulation in the EU.

[root_axis]

A monopoly is only illegal if YouTube is using anti-competitive practices to stifle competition. It's not illegal if people just prefer YouTube's product.

[KirinDave]

> A monopoly is only illegal if YouTube is using anti-competitive practices to stifle competition. It's not illegal if people just prefer YouTube's product.

This isn't strictly true even in America, and it's worth noting that every sanctioned monopoly in American history has tried to use this line of reasoning.

[root_axis]

It is strictly true as far as the law is concerned.

> every sanctioned monopoly in American history has tried to use this line of reasoning.

So what? That's like saying "every criminal has claimed they were innocent". It doesn't mean that innocent people don't exist.

[KirinDave]

> It is strictly true as far as the law is concerned.

I think maybe the problem here is that you're assuming that "active" interference needs to take place. All you need to do to hurt competition is set your monopoly-backed prices too low for other competitors to match and if you lack any competition, you're not stifling it.

> So what? That's like saying "every criminal has claimed they were innocent". It doesn't mean that innocent people don't exist.

Right, but that means "I am innocent" doesn't constitute an ironclad defense. Which is the only point I'm trying to make.

And I think the ugly part about this is that YouTube actually does an amazing and in fact peerless job on the technical side. I know how a lot of it works and it's breathtaking.

But that's part of why they can set their price for hosting at $0/byte. And that's hard for anyone at a less superlative scale to compete with.