• chitak166@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year 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@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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
                ·
                1 year 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.