• Arkouda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Every consumer has input in to what a company does by simply choosing to support the company or not. Companies tend to move really quick to fix shit when they see profit margins start to dip.

    No one is being forced to use either platform, and it is the platforms choice who they allow to use it. Don’t like their rules, go else where.

    Kind of like Lemmy instances. Don’t like the rules, go somewhere you can agree with them.

      • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        There’s like [checks notes] 2 more video platforms on the internet!

        No reason these people can’t post on those, or host their own.

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Compelling argument.

        I will just go and do a quick search to find plenty of alternative hosting platforms and choose to use one of them to immediately distribute video content and nullify your only point.

        Youtube only maintains a monopoly if people choose to use the platform. Alternatives exist. Self hosting exists. Doing something more productive than posting “content” online exists. Lets not forget about the film industry.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Having a website people can theoretically watch your video on isn’t distribution.

          People watching your video is distribution.

          There’s nowhere but YouTube where you can host video and have actual meaningful viewership be a possibility. YouTube has an absolute, complete dominance of the video space.