Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd worry about Sinclair or the majority of our newspapers that directly control content, long before I would worry about YouTube letting people speak without paying them for it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, there are laws in place which could easily be used vs companies like this, particularly Google.

Like what? How do you break a monopoly that exists because the customers prefer one product over another? Has Google engaged in anti-competitive behavior to shut down competing video streaming sites? What would breaking Youtube's "monopoly" even consist of?

That depends.

There are certain natural monopolies that exist just because it wouldn't make sense to duplicate what they do. For example, you would not have multiple power lines going into the same building. Those need to be regulated.

In markets where you could have rivals, but you don't have rivals, that's where monopolistic institutions come into play. Traditionally, in America, we have tried to keep businesses small and local, accountable to the communities they affect. This has changed over my lifetime, and absentee ownership has become a thing. But there's all kinds of negative effects to this kind of business that can be measured: things like obesity, decline in voting participation, reduction in per capita income, etc.

If you look at Google and the impact it has had on the Internet as a whole, it's hard to say what parts of it fit into which category of monopoly. An antitrust study would need to be commissioned to determine the ways in which it organizes the industry for search results, how they use data, and how they manipulate us.

I think YouTube, rather than being considered a monopoly on it's own, becomes a part of the equation in that it helps Google to manipulate the search industry. They control what videos get recommended, which has a huge impact on what content gets viewed. Claims that only hate-speech and terrorism are kept out of related content are not entirely true, every time they recommend one video over another, they are controlling the visibility of what appears to people. It's part of how monopolies function, even if it seems benevolent there's a control apparatus in place that ultimately serves the monopoly.

But controlling what people see and hear on the Internet, through search results, through recommended content, through censorship of some videos, etc - those functions give us pretty good insight into areas of overlap that should be split up. The idea they all function as part of a single company (even if it's under the holding company Alphabet) is pretty crazy.

Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.

Bing isn't used because it sucks (other than searching for porn, so maybe they just know their audience), not because of anything Google is doing. Their mighty monopoly certainly hasn't saved Google+ from failing.

The market is open for anybody to make their own search engine and video site, many do. So there is no monopoly.

 d-usa wrote:
I'd worry about Sinclair or the majority of our newspapers that directly control content, long before I would worry about YouTube letting people speak without paying them for it.

Given that Newspaper readership is dropping like a stone I wouldn't worry about them. Its all about online content nowdays.

 Grey Templar wrote:
As for what breaking Youtube's Monopoly up would look like, it would likely just consist of duplicating Youtube and all of its videos to make 2 new Streaming sites with different domain names and forcing Google to sell one of them to another company. The company google kept would remain Youtube and the new one would be named something else.

That would accomplish absolutely nothing, because it does nothing to address the market forces driving social media to single sites. A one-time duplication of Youtube wouldn't create any incentive for anyone to actually use the new site, just like all of the smaller streaming services are neglected currently despite uploading to them being trivially easy. You'd have to have some kind of enforced user split, with half of Youtube's users being moved to the new site and banned from making new Youtube accounts, which is just plain absurd. The most likely outcome of this split would be that the new company has nothing new to offer and quickly dies off as everyone keeps using Youtube. And if the new company manages to have a superior product, well, the outcome is that company becoming a monopoly as Youtube becomes obsolete and you're right back where you started.

Such a thing would also be blatantly illegal for copyright reasons, essentially having the government declare that the IP owners of each video on Youtube have all of their IP rights assigned to this new company as well. How do you justify this act of theft?

 d-usa wrote:
Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.

Bing isn't used because it sucks (other than searching for porn, so maybe they just know their audience), not because of anything Google is doing. Their mighty monopoly certainly hasn't saved Google+ from failing.

The market is open for anybody to make their own search engine and video site, many do. So there is no monopoly.

Nope. Simply being the only game in town, even if you do nothing to prevent others from showing up, does make you a monopoly per the Sherman act. Being defined as a monopoly doesn't require malicious intent on your part at all. The free market can simply cause a monopoly to naturally form, which could then be broken up under anti-trust law. The difference is people care less when the free market created it as opposed to malicious intent, but the end result of no competition is still bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
As for what breaking Youtube's Monopoly up would look like, it would likely just consist of duplicating Youtube and all of its videos to make 2 new Streaming sites with different domain names and forcing Google to sell one of them to another company. The company google kept would remain Youtube and the new one would be named something else.

That would accomplish absolutely nothing, because it does nothing to address the market forces driving social media to single sites. A one-time duplication of Youtube wouldn't create any incentive for anyone to actually use the new site, just like all of the smaller streaming services are neglected currently despite uploading to them being trivially easy. You'd have to have some kind of enforced user split, with half of Youtube's users being moved to the new site and banned from making new Youtube accounts, which is just plain absurd. The most likely outcome of this split would be that the new company has nothing new to offer and quickly dies off as everyone keeps using Youtube. And if the new company manages to have a superior product, well, the outcome is that company becoming a monopoly as Youtube becomes obsolete and you're right back where you started.

Such a thing would also be blatantly illegal for copyright reasons, essentially having the government declare that the IP owners of each video on Youtube have all of their IP rights assigned to this new company as well. How do you justify this act of theft?

You would simply have the IP owners of all the youtube videos now have duplicate accounts with the same videos on both sites. No theft involved.

Kinda like having accounts on multiple forums with the same user name. Just this would also come with identical video postings as well.

Yes it would be messy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
We regulate utilities, even when private, because effective competition is often not possible.

The difference is that Youtube is not a utility, it is a content provider. The only thing stopping competition with Youtube is that most customers feel that it is superior to its current competition.

The competition doesnt have anything near the reach and data that YouTube has. YouTube is the dirext beneficiary of everything Google (including everyones Google accounts) and its algorithms. Its ability to reach consumers is far beyond what any startup could hope for. It has more infrastructure and tools. It has deep and widespread access to funding, resources, and advertisers that nobody else can touch. It has channels with over a decade of content histoey and deep links to each other all focused around YouTube. To say that its pure consumer choice that YouTube has the position it does is to grossly underestimate those other aspects that shape our modern digital world.

 d-usa wrote:
There are a ton of streaming and hosting sites, so YouTube isn't even a monopoly.

Not in the strictest definition, but for large swathes of content types, it effectively is the only meaningful game in town. When vieweship on YouTube is literally 100, 1000, or 10000x what other platforms can deliver, that functionally makes it a monopoly in terms of the market power it wields. Alternatives may exist, but nobody is making it on those without a major YouTube presence.

I dont expect that will last forever, and I expect alternatives will develop in the future (and I expect that YouTube may shape its future content and focus more on certain types of things than trying to be the "we want it all" platform it is today), and technological advancement may chang the whole game at some point again, but right now, if you're a video content creator and you are not on YouTube, you might as well not exist.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There is a definite point where market power for any large prvivate entity that wields large economic, cultural, etc power will begin to see its freedom restricted in the name of the public good if alternatives cannot viably compete. Microsoft lived under this threat for over a decade, ITT was broken up over it and its successors have faced strong pressures against reconsolodation and the types of things they could do until fairly recently. The whole Net Neutrality thing is based in that concept, that ISP's should not muck with traffic for commercial gain because alternatives arent readily available for most. We regulate utilities, even when private, because effective competition is often not possible.

As for YouTube, theyre trying to stamp out certain things to please advertisers and preempt other forms of regulation on content (a valid concern) and limit potential liability, all rational objectices, but may run into other issues in the process as a result of their scale and market power as a result.

Which would be fine if they just made Advertisers ads only appear on videos that those advertisers wanted.

Really, it just seems like Youtube should do a better job of sorting what ads appear on what videos instead of totally demonetizing videos and/or banning channels. I'd be ok with them preventing ads from being on Gun videos if the advertisers didn't want to be there, but totally yanking certain gun videos is crossing the line.

Yeah, their criteria for that sort of stuff is very odd and lowest common denominator.

The biggest issue is their new policies applying to things that are perfectly legal and not harming anyone (like showing a 60 round drum mag), and that apply strikes against the account retroactively for content that may be over a decade old, and little or no recourse and intentionally vague criteria with literally no way to contact a human at YouTube about it.

One of the things that amused me about their new policy was that showing how to make a semiauto fire fast was taboo, but actual machineguns were not

Violating private property and seizing the means of production to benefit the greater good? Sounds good, comrade!

 feeder wrote:
Violating private property and seizing the means of production to benefit the greater good? Sounds good, comrade!

Yeah, thats not what this is at all.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You would simply have the IP owners of all the youtube videos now have duplicate accounts with the same videos on both sites. No theft involved.

It absolutely is theft. If I upload a video I give Youtube limited IP rights to use that video. I do NOT give any other company those same rights to use my IP. Creating a new account without my consent and uploading my IP there for the new company to use is blatant IP theft.

So is Starbucks a public space?

Is Walmart a public space?

is Sinclair a public space?

But in the end, Ouze was right, so I guess I'm out.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The competition doesnt have anything near the reach and data that YouTube has. YouTube is the dirext beneficiary of everything Google (including everyones Google accounts) and its algorithms. Its ability to reach consumers is far beyond what any startup could hope for. It has more infrastructure and tools. It has deep and widespread access to funding, resources, and advertisers that nobody else can touch. It has channels with over a decade of content histoey and deep links to each other all focused around YouTube. To say that its pure consumer choice that YouTube has the position it does is to grossly underestimate those other aspects that shape our modern digital world.

The same is true of every other market. There are always advantages to being an established company, but that doesn't mean that the government gets to seize your property and declare it a public space. Youtube is clearly the dominant player in the market, but it is not the only video hosting service. And it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on video hosting to the point that it can be legitimately said to be suppressing speech, rather than merely making it difficult to profit from certain business concepts.

 d-usa wrote:
Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.

Why do you think Google is a search engine?

 techsoldaten wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.

Why do you think Google is a search engine?

This question is confusing me.... they are a search engine. their whole thing is search engines and search engine accessories. algorithms is pretty much the primary focus iirc.

Algorithms is also youtubes entire thing. no one working at youtube even knows how it works let alone can put any input or alter what it does outside of changing a perimeters.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You would simply have the IP owners of all the youtube videos now have duplicate accounts with the same videos on both sites. No theft involved.

It absolutely is theft. If I upload a video I give Youtube limited IP rights to use that video. I do NOT give any other company those same rights to use my IP. Creating a new account without my consent and uploading my IP there for the new company to use is blatant IP theft.

Ok, alternately you give the uploader's choice between which company they want to go to.

But hey, I guess its clear that there are issues with how I was looking at this. Maybe it doesn't work that way.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.

Why do you think Google is a search engine?

I sincerely apologize.

I thought people were still familiar with google.com, which is a search site operated by Google, which is a tech company, who also owns YouTube, a website where videos are hosted.

So when people complained about Google, the company, steering search results to YouTube, I simply assumed that they were steering searches conducted on google.com.

I didn't realize that google.com was discontinued by Google.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Violating private property and seizing the means of production to benefit the greater good? Sounds good, comrade!

Yeah, thats not what this is at all.

You aren't arguing that YouTube is a de facto public space and should be subject to laws as a public space? You aren't arguing YouTube should have it's rights as a private entity stripped from them?

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Violating private property and seizing the means of production to benefit the greater good? Sounds good, comrade!

Yeah, thats not what this is at all.

You aren't arguing that YouTube is a de facto public space and should be subject to laws as a public space? You aren't arguing YouTube should have it's rights as a private entity stripped from them?

Stripped away entirely? no. Limited to where they can't infringe on the rights of their users because they have a virtual monopoly on video streaming services, yes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The competition doesnt have anything near the reach and data that YouTube has. YouTube is the dirext beneficiary of everything Google (including everyones Google accounts) and its algorithms. Its ability to reach consumers is far beyond what any startup could hope for. It has more infrastructure and tools. It has deep and widespread access to funding, resources, and advertisers that nobody else can touch. It has channels with over a decade of content histoey and deep links to each other all focused around YouTube. To say that its pure consumer choice that YouTube has the position it does is to grossly underestimate those other aspects that shape our modern digital world.

The same is true of every other market. There are always advantages to being an established company, but that doesn't mean that the government gets to seize your property and declare it a public space. Youtube is clearly the dominant player in the market, but it is not the only video hosting service. And it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on video hosting to the point that it can be legitimately said to be suppressing speech, rather than merely making it difficult to profit from certain business concepts.

Its not a monopoly in the same sense that Comcast isnt a monpoly. Sure there are alternatives in the market. However, for practical purposes, these organizations can exercise monopoly power. For serial video series producers, a large component of YouTubes content and a market they basically created, there isnt an alternative that they can move to and keep afloat on. If they lose access to YouTube, their viewership isnt going to follow them to another platform in numbers large enough to sustain themselves in most instances.

Going back to the Comcast example, I *can* get CenturyLink instead of comcast...but if I want anything but the lowest tier service that barely qualifies as broadband and isnt any cheaper, my only choice is Comcast.

We'll see what happens over the next few years here. I'm not a proponent of "omg youtube is evil" or "break up google" or the like, and I suspect we will see more services generate more viewership as time goes on, but it is difficult to see where they do not wield monopoly power currently in many instances even if they arent a monopoly in the most technical sense.

 Desubot wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Which matters if Google is the only search engine around, but they aren't. There are others out there, even if they are not as popular.

Why do you think Google is a search engine?

This question is confusing me.... they are a search engine. their whole thing is search engines and search engine accessories. algorithms is pretty much the primary focus iirc.

Algorithms is also youtubes entire thing. no one working at youtube even knows how it works let alone can put any input or alter what it does outside of changing a perimeters.

Google has a search engine.

Also, they have an email client called Gmail. They have an ad network that used to be called Doubleclick. They have a video platform called YouTube. They have a news aggregator called Google News. They have a calendar and invite service called Google Calendar. They have a contact service called Google Contacts. They have a video call service called Google Hangouts. You may have heard of some of these.

They have a domain name service called Google Domains. They have a great DNS service which doesn't have a formal name, but is really useful if you work on the web. You can host your websites in their datacenters using Google Cloud. If you work on the web, you may be aware of these things, and their importance in the international communications infrastructure.

They have a collection of APIs that cover integration with all of their products. They have a business unit working on self-driving cars, I saw one last time I was in Palo Alto. As part of the holding company, they have venture capital divisions, medical divisions working to fight the aging process, they have a lot of other things most people don't think of when they think about Google.

But Google's chief product is data. That's where the majority of the company's revenue comes from. They sell it in a million ways. A lot of it is collected through the ads you see, the content they recommend, and a lot of other things. The company's main line of business is tracking human behavior and, in some cases, modifying it.

Thinking about Google as a search engine is like thinking about the Universe as New York City. You may be surrounded by it all the time, but it's just a tiny spec that actually doesn't mean much.

Google does not compete with Bing. Duck Duck Go, Yahoo, or other search providers. They control an industry for content delivery that is chiefly defined by the services offered by it's platform. They are the only player in that industry, everyone else just buys into their ecosystem.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, alternately you give the uploader's choice between which company they want to go to.

This would be legal (assuming that the default answer if no response is given is that the IP rights remain with Youtube exclusively), but it also wouldn't accomplish the goal. If I have to choose then what incentive do I have to pick the new company, if all they are offering is the fact that they exist by government order? Why would my actions here be any different from how I currently ignore all of the other video hosting companies? The obstacle to competition with Youtube is the user base they have, not the data. Videos are easily uploaded to any other site, if the owner has a reason to do so.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Violating private property and seizing the means of production to benefit the greater good? Sounds good, comrade!

Yeah, thats not what this is at all.

You aren't arguing that YouTube is a de facto public space and should be subject to laws as a public space? You aren't arguing YouTube should have it's rights as a private entity stripped from them?

Stripped away entirely? no. Limited to where they can't infringe on the rights of their users because they have a virtual monopoly on video streaming services, yes.

Stronk, comrade. The Party endorses your attitude. Those capitalist thugs will pay dearly for their success.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Stripped away entirely? no. Limited to where they can't infringe on the rights of their users because they have a virtual monopoly on video streaming services, yes.

Again, you're presuming that users of a private service have rights in the first place. Youtube declining to host your files is not infringing on your rights because you had no rights to be infringed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, alternately you give the uploader's choice between which company they want to go to.

This would be legal (assuming that the default answer if no response is given is that the IP rights remain with Youtube exclusively), but it also wouldn't accomplish the goal. If I have to choose then what incentive do I have to pick the new company, if all they are offering is the fact that they exist by government order? Why would my actions here be any different from how I currently ignore all of the other video hosting companies? The obstacle to competition with Youtube is the user base they have, not the data. Videos are easily uploaded to any other site, if the owner has a reason to do so.

Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.

As mentioned up the page, the future probably is for video hosting sites to become more specialized. Not be generic hosting like youtube is now. So gun videos would have their own site, gaming streaming would have its own site, etc...

Which just kinda makes it bizarre that youtube is banning gun videos. Why not just put advertisers who are ok with being on gun videos only on their videos?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.

But that already exists. If a new company starts with a more favorable user agreement I can click "upload" and immediately have all of my content there (well, at least as fast as my ISP will transfer the data). Youtube dominates the market because IP owners have concluded that they offer the best deal, not because they are somehow prevented from seeking alternatives.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.

But that already exists. If a new company starts with a more favorable user agreement I can click "upload" and immediately have all of my content there (well, at least as fast as my ISP will transfer the data).

Not in the practical sense. Youtube is the only real game in town if you want a platform which people will actually look at your videos on.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which just kinda makes it bizarre that youtube is banning gun videos. Why not just put advertisers who are ok with being on gun videos only on their videos?

Probably one of two things: taking a political position against gun ownership and removing objectionable content (which, agree or disagree, they have a right to do), or more likely concerns over legal/PR problems in the future. If their management believes that gun videos are bad for their PR image in the current political environment then it makes sense to get them off the site. And it especially makes sense for things like "how to shoot faster with your semi-automatic gun", where there's a potential concern over new gun laws making those videos into advice on illegal activity that could get Youtube into trouble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not in the practical sense. Youtube is the only real game in town if you want a platform which people will actually look at your videos on.

Your proposed split doesn't change this. The new site wouldn't have Youtube's current user base or the inertia of "we always go to Youtube to watch stuff" built up. It would have to build a new user base from scratch, which means it would be in a worse position compared to the current competition (which at least has a few users, if not an equal market position).

And perhaps the answer is that you don't get to have a massive audience for your work. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee that people will listen to you, or that you can make a profitable business out of your speech.

YouTube is no different than FoxNews of CNN or MSNBC pushing anchors off air or forcing them to modify their message when advertisers drop out because they don't like what is being said.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the new site would certainly have a different user agreement than youtube, different terms for monetization, etc... That would be a different product. So you would have a legitimate reason to move, and maybe some legitimate reasons to stay.

But that already exists. If a new company starts with a more favorable user agreement I can click "upload" and immediately have all of my content there (well, at least as fast as my ISP will transfer the data).

Not in the practical sense. Youtube is the only real game in town if you want a platform which people will actually look at your videos on.

They are the only saloon in town worth much.
Thete far more massive than any rival and even then youtube does not make much money. It costs a lot to run and nets less than the likes of Google or other sub sections.

Also it's not just uploads. The algorithm ans suggested content systems are extremely complicated and built by some very clever, very very well paid software engineers.

The problem with needless pedantry is you might be hoist upon your own petard: more specifically, D-USA is right. Google is the search engine product, Alphabet, Inc is the company.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Also, you don't have to only engage in deliberate anti-competitive behavior to be found in violation. Youtube's size alone and dominance of the video streaming 'market' would allow for them to be seen as a Monopoly even if they did nothing to actively discourage competition.

0
Side note: this is a common belief but it's not correct. It's lawful to have a monopoly, but it's unlawful to leverage a monopoly uncompetitively. The textbook example of this would be Microsoft, which wasn't in trouble for having essentially a monopoly on the OS market, but for tying their browser to the OS to harm Netscape.