[hluska]

I’m not the person you’re replying to but can I take another shot at expressing their opinion?

Let’s take the argument away from food and move back to networks like YouTube. I’d argue that the best, most innovative thing YouTube accomplished is that they managed to solve a huge chicken or the egg problem. They managed to get enough of an audience to attract creators which has only attracted more of an audience.

How do we deal with companies like that in the context of speech? On one hand, they’re a private company and should have the right to exclude anyone they want for any reason. But what happens when they have so much attention that that exclusion deprives people of hearing right or wrong dissenting opinions?

I genuinely don’t know and my own opinion has swayed so much over the last few months that I’m either dumb or a hypocrite.

[takeda]

Well, they didn't solve the chicken & egg problem, they bought the first platform that was created.

But I don't understand how large audience matters to anyone else than to the platform.

If you're just an user, there's nothing stopping you to use all of these services. In fact given the problem mentioned no one should stick to just one, because that leads to creating a monopoly.

If you're content creator, less of other creators means less competition, your videos are more likely to be featured etc.