I disagree with the classification of “rent seeking”. It’s a service, with active expenses that you’re not paying.
If you buy a toaster, the company that made the toaster isn’t paying for the power that made the toast. That’s different from say, a ticket to a zoo, a kayaking trip company, mini-golfing, cable, Internet, phone, or the power bill itself.
They do not give creators anywhere near 100% of the ad revenue.
And nobody could, even if you operated your own site, you’d have operating costs.
Maybe the split is fair but since they have a monopoly, it’s not.
I honestly don’t even think it’s fair to say they have a monopoly. Their service offering is unique, but there are other models that aren’t YouTube clones. Reddit, Facebook, Telegram, Instagram, TikTok, and even “X” have video hosting options in slightly different formats.
The lack of a clone of a literal clone of YouTube is not a lack of competition. Additionally YouTube’s business model is extremely expensive and requires significant investment in storage.
They are the equivalent of pre-capitalist English land barons who added very little (besides maybe some accounting) and took more than their share. YouTube’s profits are a tax on the creator economy in the same way Apple’s App Store tax is terrible for developers. We do not have a moral responsibility to pay taxes to private companies.
IMO, those are some serious mental gymnastics equating renting land you need to survive, that you’re forced to pay to a government entity, or an app store which is the only possible source of apps for an entire operating system vs a website you have the choice to use or not use and that had active and large operating costs because of its extensive catalog of freely uploaded content.
I disagree with the classification of “rent seeking”. It’s a service, with active expenses that you’re not paying.
If you buy a toaster, the company that made the toaster isn’t paying for the power that made the toast. That’s different from say, a ticket to a zoo, a kayaking trip company, mini-golfing, cable, Internet, phone, or the power bill itself.
And nobody could, even if you operated your own site, you’d have operating costs.
I honestly don’t even think it’s fair to say they have a monopoly. Their service offering is unique, but there are other models that aren’t YouTube clones. Reddit, Facebook, Telegram, Instagram, TikTok, and even “X” have video hosting options in slightly different formats.
The lack of a clone of a literal clone of YouTube is not a lack of competition. Additionally YouTube’s business model is extremely expensive and requires significant investment in storage.
IMO, those are some serious mental gymnastics equating renting land you need to survive, that you’re forced to pay to a government entity, or an app store which is the only possible source of apps for an entire operating system vs a website you have the choice to use or not use and that had active and large operating costs because of its extensive catalog of freely uploaded content.
I’m traveling right now but I’m gonna respond to thia and if I don’t, nag me.