You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 5 Compelling Reasons Why The Youtube Shooting Has Disappeared From Headlines
They absolutely are a monopoly, they have no competitors who come even close to their scale. Neutrality as in not selectively enforcing rules for points of view they don't agree with rather than just enforcing TOS. Their TOS has been repeatedly shown to be violated and they are going to be sued over it as a result of this exact behavior.
Saying that property is theft is a bit of an oxymoron. You can't have theft without property. If they have violated their TOS then a lawsuit is an appropriate response. They are still not a monopoly.
Well that is irrelevant because I never said "property is theft". You can have theft without property, it is called "intellectual property" and it protects the investment used to produce it, but again this has zero to do with my argument and I am not even sure why you are bringing it up. The matter at hand is a violation of TOS which is a CONTRACTUAL violation. As far as being a monopoly, it certainly is: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
I don't know why either. I think that was meant to be a response to something else.
But like I said, lawsuits are an appropriate response if they have violated their TOS.
Neither facebook nor youtube have a monopoly. In fact, they are in the same market and are owned by different companies. They don't even sell anything to their users. And as far as competitors, here's a very incomplete list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites
This doesn't include things like Wordpress and Steemit among others or various video sites.
Google+ has more registered users than facebook. Sites like twitter and tumblr while having significantly fewer registered users, still have hundreds of millions each.
They all serve different end user markets, you can argue till you are blue in the face but Youtube/Google is a monopoly by any definition. Just because other options exist doesn't mean they are competitors. The user base of any other video sites combined are a pittance compared to Youtube.
And you can yell "monopoly" all day long but saying it doesn't make it true.
"NO U" Isn't an argument. I supported my position with facts. Now you try.
I did. Repeatedly. You just choose to ignore them. You've offered no evidence facebook or youtube is a monopoly whereas I gave you numerous examples of competitors and even some statistics.
Actually you argued there are other options therefor it is not a monopoly. My response was that all of those other options combined are a pittance compared to Youtube. You argued sites like Facebook and Twitter are competition. My reply was they do not serve the same user market. I ignored nothing and responded with facts to counter your arguments. As far as "statistics", you did no such thing. If you had bothered to read your own source you will notice Youtube is not even on that list, almost like they consider it a different user market... It is a media website, not a social networking site.