Well, it's better if they don't keep it running them.

They have a monopoly on search, that they use to censor any competing video hosting. If they go and start censoring their own service too, this is a very serious problem.

Youtube's value isn't as a profit center, but a way of keeping people inside Google's ad ecosystem. Its value is to dominate the video hosting market so that viable competitors can't rise up in its place. If Google can squeeze profit out, that's icing on the cake, but not the core reason why Google wants to hold on to Youtube.

If the profitability of Youtube is on the table, then so should be antitrust, and Google should not be allowed to own it.

> Youtube's value isn't as a profit center, but a way of keeping people inside Google's ad ecosystem.

Even more important from Google's point of view is it was the way to push Chrome to dominance. And a way to keep it there ahead of any potential competitors.

Which is valuable because of the data and ability to block ad blockers. That is, Google's ad ecosystem.

> it was the way to push Chrome to dominance.

How did YT push Chrome?

In 2009/2010 YouTube advertised Chrome as a better way to view YouTube videos pretty extensively. YouTube also is a moving target that other browsers have to hit (see also GoogleDocs.)

It's similar to how "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run", only with YouTube and other browsers.

Microsoft abandoned their "not Chrome-based" Edge code base, despite the fact that it was significantly faster than Chrome on almost every other site, because of the way that YouTube does some layers. This "way" has no functional effect, but it does block certain optimizations, optimizations that Edge was using and Chrome still isn't.

Google optimizes YT for Chromium-based renderers. Or rather, Google pessimizes YT for other renderers.