They are acting like a monopolist. And they are an effective monopoly.

A reply to you makes the unsubstantiated claim that YouTube is a profit-seeking company. They ignore the fact that, no, YouTube has not operated as a profit-seeking company. The reason YouTube is, and will remain, the pre-eminent video platform is because it was run at a profound loss for over a decade, losing hundreds of millions of dollars at a clip, for no reason other than to totally suppress competition. Framing them as some kind of capitalist company is genuinely false.

If you wish to build a competitor to YouTube, your first task is to secure a billion dollars or so to build a competitive infrastructure with investors who are prepared to lose money on its operation for no less than a decade and quite possibly forever (or until Google goes bankrupt).

> The reason YouTube is, and will remain, the pre-eminent video platform is because it was run at a profound loss for over a decade, losing hundreds of millions of dollars at a clip, for no reason other than to totally suppress competition.

No one actually knows whether YT is technically profitable as a sole entity. So the premise of your argument and the argument you're referring to is basically flawed unless you have insider information.

And practically impossible to determine. How much does Google "earn" by having a better idea of who its audience is?

How much does Google "earn" by keeping its competition weak(er)?

How much does Google "earn" by being able to speech-to-text all video and increase its corpus of knowledge?

How much does Google "earn" by being a better search engine because it can provide video results?

How much does Youtube bandwidth "cost" Google when it has links into every exchange there is anyway?

Your local auto parts store prices oil lower than a mechanic can get it for, just to bring people in the door to sell them other items.

This is a well known tactic; these items are called "loss leaders". The fact that in this environment other people have successfully made video sharing websites (without a billion dollars, no less) means that the environment is competitive, even with the loss leader tactic.

On TOP of that, "Sharing videos" is not something that is required for civil society. It's an ancillary waste of time, but in no way owed to the public sphere.

>Your local auto parts store prices oil lower than a mechanic can get it for

Why doesn't the mechanic just buy their oil from the auto parts store?

They do! But they charge you full retail price on the bill, without the loss leader pricing.

If you've ever had an oil change and thought, "I can get oil for less" - you're right.

They are a for profit company and can do what ever they want. regardless if their membership is free or not.

There are other choices out there. They may not be the best. People can build their own youtube if they want to.

At least in the USofA you can build something similar with your own rules.

youtube can be taken down, but people appear to be too lazy or unaware of what youtube is doing slowly. Taking away certain liberties that used to be available in YouTube.

peace

There's tons of other video sites that people are free to use. Nobody "requires" you to use YouTube.

"But more people are there, my videos won't be see elsewhere!" does not count as a monopoly.

Host your videos elsewhere, nobody's "owed" access to Youtube.

Is this an argument about free speech?

Its more about the arbitrary practices which affect people’s livelihood while youtube retains all the profits from content it eventually disagrees with

This anticompetitive behavior can be curbed using the people’s government in ways that have nothing to do with free speech

Are there alternatives?

Yes, tons of them. Don't like Youtube? Don't use Youtube.

Simple.

And simultaneously use existing arbiters created by the people to change youtube’s internal policies

It's not censorship by the definition used by law, no. It's still morally ambiguous...

It's like how free speech is both a reference to the first amendment and a concept in and of itself, meaning that you can support free speech in private spaces, without supporting it as a requirement under law. There's always confusion over the difference between what should be allowed under law and how things should be ideally.