Message from @Holo
Discord ID: 606238646189686805
if it's unprofitable, shouldn't the question be 'why' and not just accepting that?
Who cares if your product is the best on the market if no one wants it enough so you operate at a loss, it's the same end result, and your competitors are not the reason why you fail
This is why they have started to charge for it with premium membership.
You really need to understand the difference between an actual market bully and a monopoly
Netflix streaming is almost there though.
i'm not entirely sure ET is understanding my point here
But not for personal gratification. <:UwUzalu:583698818642608138>
I do get your point, but you don't understand how supply & demand works
Any large corporation with enough subsidiaries will be able to eat any loss from a poorly run industry, meaning that the barrier for entry is exorbitantly high
You're still arguing the wrong way
btw the only youtube competitor i've heard of is DLive and that's still a tiny service that i don't like tbh
If demand for your product is not high enough, you don't make a profit either way
It doesn't matter if there are any competitors or not, it doesn't matter what policy they have on the product
hold on there champ```How many YouTube accounts are there 2019?
Facts and Numbers
The total number of people who use YouTube – 1,300,000,000. 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute! Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube.```
Youtube **operates at a loss**
I KNOW
then stop using demand as an excuse to hide behind
it's not demand
No I won't stop using it, because it's the correct argument
So youtube doesn't make money, why then. please explain that to me, they had youtube red, that failed miserably, they had youtube shows which also failed, yet they have about 1/7th of the world population registered on their site
Youtube is operating at a loss with their service = it's not in demand
"I think I should create an alternative to Youtube, even though Youtube itself is not in demand" => Fool, bad businessman
It's not
You just don't like the fact that Youtube (or Google) is a monopoly
It's not possible to create an alternative to Youtube, NOT because Youtube is a monopoly, but because the product is not in demand
People are watching Youtube, but they're not paying a dime for it, and even with ads running Youtube can't turn a profit. This means alternative products have to offer a different experience than that of Youtube if they want to be in demand enough so they can actually turn a profit and become a serious competitor. At no point in this logic is Youtube responsible for the failure of an alternative platform.
The real problem is that these social media platforms are not behaving like platforms. Solve that problem and the REAL issue will also be solved. Because it's not about being a monopoly, it's about censorship without accountability.
Stop blaming monopolies, you're just showing your ignorance of economics.
Dude advertising was the answer!
Its not rocket science. Its simple, you just end up not doing what is necessary to keep a beneficial amount of cash. The money that Google was making from Ad revenues , however , was crushed because every country had different amounts of advertising companies and sometimes they can't keep up with the demand.
Just breakup 'big tech', easy.
What if, to make lawsuits more affordable, we gave every defendant and plaintiff the option for a public attorney, just like for defendants in criminal cases.
And to incentivise the attorneys who work on salary, we offer them a cut of the profits
@Wild Dog no but, there's always one asshole that will become your government official; he/she allows that process, to, not be fair. Throughout because they are out of touch with reality. Now the daily lives of people -; compared to 'tech giants', has been a massive leap.
You can't suddenly have a change in people's thinking, about their lives, about the services they need daily that exsist for the benefit of others and themselves. For example hospital. You may not visit a hospital that many times but you were born in one. Then when you figure out how many people work in a hospital and you compare their pay it's , a whole different set of values or perspective. But, you're not going to make the law suits fair unless you understand, they too need protecting for the sake of the population. And perhaps, the attorneys, are like -: thinking they are more important?
@Wild Dog Here is a nice philosopher whom makes sense of specialisation and morals that we are not able to get back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejJRhn53X2M
@TEABAG!!! I don't think that the attorneys are *neccesarily* even looking at that from a who's more important in the schema of things.
The two things (medical and litigation) are separate fields, and the latter is used to protect the former in some cases. As the clientele can afford to pay more, the attorney makes more.
@Wild Dog If someone pissed me off enough to take it to the courts I could see giving the public attorney more than half the payout on a win on some moral grounds of just ensuing someone wont get away with out right theft and such.
Yo @mikimof2 the ancap is in. Just let me get comfortable on this throne made of socialist workers...
@Lupinate I would like to know about anarcho-capitalism from the wiewpoint of one, and basically understand how you came to your conclusions
Well, started in 2012, mainly. First and last election I ever bothered to vote in, and my candidate (Ron Paul) got robbed all over the map. So that began my disillusionment. Follow that up with the ndaa of 2012,which abolished habeas corpus conceptually if you are suspected of terrorism. That really made me lose trust in the system.
I was a minarchist libertarian then. Minimal government, but need police and judges and money to be at least somewhat central for civilisation to work. Then bitcoin came out, and my ancap mates had only two markets to prove could be provided in a truly decentralised manner.
And it was a lot of debate, and a lot Austrian economic theory being painstakingly explained in detail, that let me eventually realise markets can technically do it all. The private sector basically does the implementation of policies everywhere in any case.
Ok, but how will you keep private companies from basically becoming nations in their own right? Because that is, at least in my opinion, the consequence of the ancap system