• @chitak166
    link
    English
    -17 months ago

    I mean, that’s a terrible business decision when you have a monopoly.

    I can easily see you getting fired for even suggesting this. It just shows how out of touch you are with modern economics.

    • magic_lobster_party
      link
      fedilink
      17 months ago

      This is Google’s strategy. Haven’t you followed the manifest V3 debacle? They want to end ad blocking once and for all. Their entire business model is to sell ads. They want to turn that ad blocking crooks into sweet new ad revenue. Maybe even subscription revenue.

      • @chitak166
        link
        English
        07 months ago

        Yes, but google won’t sacrifice its monopoly to show people more ads. Hence why they, you know, haven’t done it yet.

        • magic_lobster_party
          link
          fedilink
          17 months ago

          In what way are they sacrificing their monopoly? There’s no viable alternative to n YouTube.

          They also restricted IE6 when it was far more dominant than Firefox is today (and when YouTube was far less dominant), so it’s not completely unheard of.

          • @Chreutz
            link
            English
            17 months ago

            But using the dominance of YouTube to influence the browser market is textbook anticompetitive, painting a huge target on themselves for regulators.

            • magic_lobster_party
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              They can probably find loop holes, like saying they do support many alternative browsers like Edge, Safari, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, etc. . They just don’t want “insecure” and “outdated” browsers that support terrible stuff like ad blocking, but they can agree to support Firefox if Mozilla takes action to prevent “insecure” extensions like ad blocking.