Anonymity on the Internet Must Be Protected (1995)

Re:Anonymity on the Internet Must Be Protected (1995) by AnthonyMouse on Friday October 12, 2018 @03:31PM (#18204054)

You keep talking about government and property but the issue is antitrust. The government never forced anybody to buy their fuel from Standard Oil but the government still rightfully broke them up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Anonymity on the Internet Must Be Protected (1995) by bilbo0s on Saturday October 13, 2018 @09:54PM (#18210966)

Because you couldn't buy fuel any other place.

But you CAN view live video streams at numerous other places.

This is the difference that's glaringly obvious to everyone else, but somehow seems to escape you. DailyMotion exists. Twitch exists. Vimeo exists. Facebook video exists, and is actually larger than YouTube. (by megabyte stored.) Twitter video exists. Instagram video exists. Snapchat video exists. The list goes on and on.

You have to have a monopoly, to break up a monopoly. YouTube doesn't have a monopoly. You, presumably, just like their property more than Twitch or Instagram video or whatever. So you want to use YouTube.

Fine. I get that.

But that's a 'YOU' problem, not an 'US' problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Anonymity on the Internet Must Be Protected (1995) by gambler on Tuesday October 16, 2018 @03:17PM (#18232320)

Microsoft didn't force anyone to use Windows/Office/IE in the 90s. There were other choices. And yet they were hit by anti-monopoly lawsuit. Why? Because they had enough market captured to undermine any serious competition. Google is in a similar position right now.

Also, if you view YouTube as merely a video hosting service, you're completely missing the point. It's the second largest search engine on the web.

[ Parent | on HN ]