Anyone who has spent any amount of time on the internet has had to fend off attacks by people who call themselves Libertarians. Oftentimes Cuckservatives fall under this very same definition, when it comes to shilling for big businesses. They’ll say things like “free markets,” and “government regulation,” and, at their worst, go on to make arguments like “you’re richer than Louis the 16th, the Sun God, because although he had master chefs making him 40 meals a night, you can go to the supermarket and buy a theoretically infinite combination of goods so you can make infinity dinners for yourself.”
But while everyone can immediately see how idiotic these arguments are when taken to such extremes, many people lack the vocabulary to understand truly how unfair big business truly is.
Big businesses are invariably big because they have a natural unfair advantage that being big provides. YouTube is a great example. They have by far, and it’s not even close, the largest audience. As a result, people make videos for YouTube. This grows their audience, which makes more people make videos for YouTube, and so on. There is a positive feedback loop that is obtained simply by virtue of being successful. And Google didn’t even get that by being good, they just subsidized YouTube to 2 billion per year until they got an insurmountable install base advantage over everyone else. In fact, we upload videos to YouTube, Odyssey, and BitChute, and have found Odyssey in particular has some small improvements, such as better tagging of videos. But that’s not even remotely enough to overcome the at least 100:1 audience size discrepancy.
Some content creators, worried about mass censorship on YouTube hitting them, have channels on BitChute and Odysee. Despite this quasi-political content being a large portion of the audience on these channels, we can get some realistic numbers. BitChute is about 1/25th the size of YouTube, or 4%. Odysee is about 1/500th the size, or 0.2%. If you post your videos on YouTube, you have access to 95.8% of the total audience. If you can only post your videos on Odysee and BitChute, you have access to just 4.2% of the audience. This shows that ultimately there are some minor alternatives to YouTube that can be used for political gain.
But as far as destroying YouTube, the vast majority of their product is apolitical in nature. Of the top 15 most viewed videos on YouTube, as of writing, only two have even been posted to BitChute, Baby Shark Dance, and Ed Sheeran Shape of You. The views are ~700 and 190 respectively. Or in other words, literally 10,000,000:1 audience. Ten million to one.
I hope it becomes obvious why the other videos aren’t posted. There is simply no point to wasting your time.
Facebook is another great example. It barely even qualifies as a tech company, and the website is universally accepted to be terrible. So why do people use it? Because other people use it. Facebook would have no value if only one person used it, but it has a massive multi billion person audience. If you simply cloned Facebook you would have “just as good of a product,” in the autistic sense, but since you don’t have the install base, nobody is going to use your facebook clone. People rely on Facebook for advertising their businesses, meeting people apolitically, and a whole host of other services that you won’t be able to provide, simply because of the inherent unfair advantage to success in many truly free market businesses.
Amazon is the same. They have the largest audience, which gives them better economies of scale, and the ability to cater to more niche audiences. This gives them a larger audience, and so on and so forth. The idea that Amazon is this amazing piece of technology and business that you’d need to be a genius to compete with is absurd. It’s a website coupled with warehouse logistics.
In reality, these businesses are natural monopolies. They don’t need artificial government help to be monopolies, they just are. This should be considered in comparison to true small businesses, which often do not get unfair advantages to success. A family restaurant, if wildly successful, does not magically get larger seating capacity. There is a finite limit on how successful they can be. Same for a self employed carpenter, or dock repair guy. Social networks are winner takes all businesses. Janitorial services are not.
Billionaires are a worthless class of people that have massively outsourced returns on the value they have provided to society, precisely because they own businesses in sectors where they enjoy unfair advantages inherently due to previous success. Winner takes all fields. Success that, as Google has shown with YouTube, can simply be purchased by already being rich, in a different business (search engines) that also has unfair advantages to success.
Now, do they conspire with parasites in the government to get what they want over you? Of course they do. But what Facebook wants more than anything else isn’t some special privileges, it’s to not be regulated. They’re the winner of a winner takes all market worth a trillion dollars. Any truly populist politician will run on stopping Facebook from censoring the people, which is an imposition on the free market, and Facebook bribes politicians to stop that from happening.
Businesses beyond a certain valuation, such as one billion dollars, must be run in accordance with the will of the people. The exact mechanism through which we can accomplish this is simply listening to what the people want and doing that. And we can start by preventing these trillion dollar multinational corporations, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etcetera, from engaging in mass censorship.