There's already several articles about Google on the front page. I'm curious why they would be making moves to avoid an anti-trust lawsuit on the one hand with its scaling back of using AMP; while on the other hand, they seem to be actively using their monopoly with YT to generate ad revenue by forcing it on the content creators.
This puts a lot of people in a bad situation. There's no real recourse because the platform has so many users dependent on it, and its not easy to simply yank all of your content and go to another platform. The logistics of doing so are cumbersome and time consuming.
I don't know what the long term solution is, but this just seems very unreasonable. When you're business becomes so reliant on Google, you don't have any alternative but to just take what they do to you as a part of doing business with them.
That isn't using the monopoly to generate ad revenue it is using their traffic to generate revenue. If anything running YT division at a loss is way worse for antitrust than milking it hard for ads.
Both are different cases. Monopoly (dominant position) isn't bad abusing monopoly in one segment to gain market in another is. So AMP is bad, as they are abusing monopoly in search/news to enter hosting/content platform business. Youtube monetization is not independent of Youtube, so they are free to build upon it.
This puts a lot of people in a bad situation. There's no real recourse because the platform has so many users dependent on it, and its not easy to simply yank all of your content and go to another platform. The logistics of doing so are cumbersome and time consuming.
I don't know what the long term solution is, but this just seems very unreasonable. When you're business becomes so reliant on Google, you don't have any alternative but to just take what they do to you as a part of doing business with them.