[olliej]

No it’s not. There are innumerable hosting services.

The crux is people wanting to spread their views but who don’t want to pay to do that.

[RonanTheGrey]

> There are innumerable hosting services.

Is this an honest comment or one you hope won't be challenged? There are NO video hosting services with the popularity or reach of YouTube, by a very long shot. Customers of ours have lost their entire livelihood because content that was present on YouTube for a decade was suddenly politically incorrect and their accounts got banned.

That wouldn't be the case if they had more than one reasonable option.

[techntoke]

There are hundreds if not thousands of video sharing platforms. Plus a shared web host cost very little, and there is always BitTorrent too. No one is forcing anyone to use YouTube for videos. Anyone that lost their livelihood because of YouTube should have read the TOS.

[RonanTheGrey]

> There are hundreds if not thousands of video sharing platforms.

You keep trying to gloss over the fact that RandomVideo has nowhere near the size or reach of YouTube. Monopolies DO NOT REQUIRE zero competitors, that has never been part of their definition. Some videos on YT have BILLIONS of views. There's literally no meaningful competitor.

[downerending]

That may well be true, but it's not a reason for me to think of Google/YouTube's behavior as in any way acceptable.

[techntoke]

So in order to have a business, you believe that you should have to cater to everyone regardless of what they do or say because otherwise you are censoring them?

[downerending]

I think that if you get a reputation for immoral behavior, even if it's legal, your business is going to eventually pay a price (and rightfully so).

[techntoke]

Have you told that to Comcast?

[RonanTheGrey]

YouTube is not "just any business" and the idea of regulating what is otherwise legal behavior is well-established.