[bluish29]

People pay for the roads that is being used while riding a bus. It is built and maintained by their taxes. Bus fares is going towards other costs from operations to salaries. YouTube on the other hand is a freeloader on the internet infrastructure.

[jamielife]

That's a ridiculous take. The Internet isn't just free infrastructure that anyone can use. The data has to live somewhere. 2,500 people work at YT. They pay salaries, have offices, manage servers to store the videos, pay their content creators, etc.

So nobody is allowed to start an internet company and make money from it?

Uber is a business using roads that people pay for, should they not make money? Should those drivers not get paid as well?

[bluish29]

>That's a ridiculous take

Please chill up and don't forget the HN guidelines [1]

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

That is not the point of my comment, you misinterpreted the meaning of my comments and then built an assumption that it says that "nobody is allowed to start an internet company and make money from it?"

Which is not what my comments says. I will also not try to engage with a discussion in which side don't discuss in a good faith. Specially coming from a new account created for this purpose only.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[jamielife]

Hey man, sorry forgot about this thread. Anyway, calling something ridiculous, as in it's easily open to ridicule, is not necessarily an insult when the specific thing is exactly that. Try not to be so easily offended. Especially online.

Also, I responded to every example you had with clarifying questions that were designed to get you to think about your points and back them up or (hopefully) change them. Reading comprehension is important. Saying things like "that wasn't my point" then not realizing what you implied nor clarifying what your point actually is a prime example of why. You don't have to say something directly to make an implication, which is exactly what you did on multiple points.

Gaslighting me into "not acting in good faith," so you don't have to actually think about the strength of your point (or lack thereof) is however the very thing you claim I'm doing. I just wanted to say that I hope you get more confidence in debate so that you aren't so quick to play the victim when your argument is held to the tiniest bit of scrutiny and try to take some imaginary moral high ground that isn't there.