Google is a monopoly — and it's crushing the internet

backpacker said:

Youtube and Google fiber would definitely have to be spun off. Double Click would also likely be needed to put into a stand alone company.

Click to expand...

Google Fiber technically is so good luck with that. The only thing they have in common with regular Google is the holding company of Alphabet, also YouTube cannot be "spun off" as it cannot survive as a standalone company. You can't separate Google ads form Google.

Carjosse said:

Google Fiber technically is so good luck with that. The only thing they have in common with regular Google is the holding company of Alphabet, also YouTube cannot be "spun off" as it cannot survive as a standalone company. You can't separate Google ads form Google.

Click to expand...

Perpetuating the monopoly is not the concern of anti-trust action. Quite the opposite. If youtube cannot survive as a stand alone company, there is always vimeo.

backpacker said:

Perpetuating the monopoly is not the concern of anti-trust action. Quite the opposite. If youtube cannot survive as a stand alone company, there is always vimeo.

Click to expand...

It is not YouTube's fault that it is the best and most popular video hosting platform and all the others are sub-par. We should not be getting rid of YouTube, Google is not using it to exploit the market. Google is a monopoly because it is the best, and we should not be stopping that. There is nothing stopping Bing or Vimeo from becoming more popular expect for the fact they are inferior options compared to Google's offers. Google needs it size to support these technologies, and I support the advancement of technology, unlike you apparently. Why handicap technological advancement? There is also the fact that YouTube is essentially a video archive of of culture and history from the past decade and beyond, we should not be getting rid of it because you do not like it.

Carjosse said:

It is not YouTube's fault that it is the best and most popular video hosting platform and all the others are sub-par. We should not be getting rid of YouTube, Google is not using it to exploit the market. Google is a monopoly because it is the best, and we should not be stopping that. There is nothing stopping Bing or Vimeo from becoming more popular expect for the fact they are inferior options compared to Google's offers. Google needs it size to support these technologies, and I support the advancement of technology, unlike you apparently. Why handicap technological advancement? There is also the fact that YouTube is essentially a video archive of of culture and history from the past decade and beyond, we should not be getting rid of it because you do not like it.

Click to expand...

It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. Youtube is most popular because it largely ignores people's intellectual property rights. There is no "advancement of technology" in monopolies and their walled gardens. Google inhibits advancement of technology. Microsoft does more for advancement than google does in supporting open source Android telephones. Double click doesn't encourage competition--it crushes it. Microsoft is what people think Google is and Google is what people paint microsoft as.

backpacker said:

It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. Youtube is most popular because it largely ignores people's intellectual property rights. There is no "advancement of technology" in monopolies and their walled gardens. Google inhibits advancement of technology. Microsoft does more for advancement than google does in supporting open source Android telephones. Double click doesn't encourage competition--it crushes it. Microsoft is what people think Google is and Google is what people paint microsoft as.

Click to expand...

I have see you know nothing about YouTube, its copyright system, or even copyright itself. Do you not know what fair use is? YouTube's copyright system is very much in the favour of companies who who takeout claims against creator's contents even if it is very clear it is fair use and it takes a long time for creators to appeal these claims. Sometimes these claims are over reactions to trailers or even 5 seconds of license music in a video game. If anything YouTube's copyright system is abused by companies, and it is. Please tell me YouTube largely ignores intellectual property rights.

You understand nothing, you clearly have no idea how any technologies work. It is not about encouraging competition, competition exists it is just worse. Do you know hwy Google Maps is the best? Because of its integration with other Google serveries which makes it substantially more useful than say Bing Maps. Google is not a walled garden, many companies base their technologies upon Google platforms. e.g. Uber uses Google Maps.

Carjosse said:

I have see you know nothing about YouTube, its copyright system, or even copyright itself. Do you not know what fair use is? YouTube's copyright system is very much in the favour of companies who who takeout claims against creator's contents even if it is very clear it is fair use and it takes a long time for creators to appeal these claims. Sometimes these claims are over reactions to trailers or even 5 seconds of license music in a video game. If anything YouTube's copyright system is abused by companies, and it is. Please tell me YouTube largely ignores intellectual property rights.

You understand nothing, you clearly have no idea how any technologies work. It is not about encouraging competition, competition exists it is just worse. Do you know hwy Google Maps is the best? Because of its integration with other Google serveries which makes it substantially more useful than say Bing Maps. Google is not a walled garden, many companies base their technologies upon Google platforms.

Click to expand...

I understand you apparently like free stuff without appreciating the cost of "free". Fair Use is constantly misused by youtube users. Youtube just counts on content being generated outpacing their slow take down response time.

backpacker said:

I understand you apparently like free stuff without appreciating the cost of "free". Fair Use is constantly misused by youtube users. Youtube just counts on content being generated outpacing their slow take down response time.

Click to expand...

Like I said give me an example of this. The copyright system on YouTube is abused to no end especially by entertainment companies, who take out strikes against videos who criticize their products or are very clearly using it under fair use. One the YouTuber's I watch got a video taken down for showing 20 seconds of the new Star Wars trailer and stills in a reaction video. Another one has his videos taken down because he said bad things about their game.

Do you believe that showing copyrighted material in a video is against fair use?

Carjosse said:

Like I said give me an example of this. The copyright system on YouTube is abused to no end especially by entertainment companies, who take out strikes against videos who criticize their products or are very clearly using it under fair use. One the YouTuber's I watch got a video taken down for showing 20 seconds of the new Star Wars trailer and stills in a reaction video. Another one has his videos taken down because he said bad things about their game.

Do you believe that showing copyrighted material in a video is against fair use?

Click to expand...

YouTube doesn't even hide behind fair use. Its users try to. Youtube hides behind the safe harbor provisions that forces the copyright holders to find their stolen content and then report it.

backpacker said:

YouTube doesn't even hide behind fair use. Its users try to. Youtube hides behind the safe harbor provisions that forces the copyright holders to find their stolen content and then report it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because they have to. You want YouTube to manually check the 400 hours of video uploaded EVERY MINUTE for copyrighted content? What ****ing insane universe do you live in? It is impossible form a sheer logistics standpoint and the fact that YouTube has no idea what counts as copyrighted material or if permission has been given unless the company does it.