• chitak166@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 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@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 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@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 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.