• NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’d hope that would lead to FTC action, but that’s only if the republicans don’t win the presidency next year.

    • chitak166@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Youtube’s entire platform is built around dominance. It’s the one-stop-shop for all “content creators.”

      They won’t sacrifice that because it will make Youtube no longer synonymous with ‘online video.’

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          I mean, that’s a terrible business decision when you have a monopoly.

          I can easily see you getting fired for even suggesting this. It just shows how out of touch you are with modern economics.

          • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            This is Google’s strategy. Haven’t you followed the manifest V3 debacle? They want to end ad blocking once and for all. Their entire business model is to sell ads. They want to turn that ad blocking crooks into sweet new ad revenue. Maybe even subscription revenue.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yes, but google won’t sacrifice its monopoly to show people more ads. Hence why they, you know, haven’t done it yet.

              • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                In what way are they sacrificing their monopoly? There’s no viable alternative to n YouTube.

                They also restricted IE6 when it was far more dominant than Firefox is today (and when YouTube was far less dominant), so it’s not completely unheard of.

                • Chreutz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  But using the dominance of YouTube to influence the browser market is textbook anticompetitive, painting a huge target on themselves for regulators.

                  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    They can probably find loop holes, like saying they do support many alternative browsers like Edge, Safari, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc. . They just don’t want “insecure” and “outdated” browsers that support terrible stuff like ad blocking, but they can agree to support Firefox if Mozilla takes action to prevent “insecure” extensions like ad blocking.