Looking at this as a single instance of censorship as tyranny might provoke ridicule, but I see where OP is coming from.
Taken in aggregate, in a world with multi-trillion dollar corporations censor their users, it's not ridiculous to talk about this as tyranny. There is no one tyrant, but every corporation rules like one and taken as a whole, the "world's government" (in this case the set of the most powerful corporations) is tyranny.
Anyway, I'm neither here nor there on the argument, but I don't see what's so laughable about OPs offhand comment.
cuz if you don't like taco bell there are 2000 other choices that are also good or you can make your own tacos. the same cannot be said for Facebook or YouTube alternatives.
There are literally hundreds of social media platforms and video hosting sites on the web. Many Youtubers are even advertising their content on alternative platforms.
but YouTube is 1000x more popular than the others and much nicer interface and useability. They are not interchangeable in the same way food choices are interchangeable.
… and Taco Bell is 1000x more popular than the vast majority of other restaurants.
Video services are interchangeable. They all have video. They may not have the videos you want to watch, just as other restaurants may not have food you want to eat.
YouTube makes a product. You use that product. No one is forcing you, legally or otherwise, to use it. You can easily not use the product. There are viable competitors to that product. If YouTube stops being good, people will move on to another product.
You cannot, on one hand, remark on how much nicer of an interface YouTube has while also complaining that a change the team which created the superior interface has chosen to make, in hopes of making the interface better, is somehow "tyranny".
Nothing is stopping those other platforms from becoming more popular over time, or from improving their interface or usability.
Being popular is not the same as having a monopoly. Youtube doesn't control infrastructure, they can't prevent users from watching other sites or hosting videos elsewhere. They're not granted special privilege by a government. We've just convinced ourselves for the sake of political narrative that these platforms have far greater power than they actually do.
right. huge companies but also fewer choices. Choice is supposed to be a feature of capitalism, free markets. When so much speech is online, then yet privatization of said speech does become a problem , imho.
