Source?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-... (not sure how to un-ampify this)

Posturing above the rest of the community isn't helpful either. If you're posting here, you're as much "HN" as anyone.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: Facebook, Twitter

However, I think it's too restrictive to only consider platforms to be competitors of Youtube only when the use case is analogous, and it's incorrect to imply that Facebook can only be competing with Youtube if their users exclusively use it to watch videos.

Any platform that supports video streaming is potentially competing against Youtube. The specific use case of the platform is irrelevant, only scale and mindshare matter - the degree to which people spend time there rather than on Youtube.

Culturally, it doesn't. There aren't famous "facebookers". It doesn't even support playlists.

These other companies can manage it.

YouTube can't, but importantly YouTube wants it both ways - they want to include content that targets children without providing any of the protection that parents expect.

And that expectation isn't unreasonable. We don't want parents who helicopter every waking hour of their children's lives, we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow.

But there's no reason to include youtube in that, just like you (presumably) don't include the broader internet in that.