[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.

[root_axis]

> 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.

YouTube has stayed the same price since it was created, long before it became a monopoly.

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

Obviously. My point is that you haven't shown any examples of YouTube abusing its monopoly to stifle competition, thus the argument that they are in danger of violating anti-trust laws does not seem to be correct.

We both agree that YouTube has the largest market share, but can you explain to me why you believe YouTube's market share is the result of anti-competitive practices and not a result of a superior product?