The efficient solution to that problem is governments using a different platform that's actually neutral. The government has full control over where they host their videos. Using that as a reason to TRY (a likely long and drawn out process) to force Google to change its policies company-wide is silly.
I'm not being disingenuous. I watch videos on a bunch of platforms. It's easy.
He can decide, and his middle managers can decide, and you can also decide by choosing to shop from somewhere else.
Because that's not how internet business works.
How does it work, then?
This is not a thing that Google invented and developed on their own.
I don't know what this is referring to or what it has to do with anything.
No, not really. Google can't do anything about my taking my Firefox browser and watching videos from somewhere else. There are countless other video streaming services.
How?
Pick a different example then. In my experience movie theaters don't let you bring food in from outside. McDonald's still won't sell a Burger King burger regardless of whether you could bring one in.
That's less restrictive than what I said. McDonald's won't let you bring tacos in at all, doesn't just make you wait at the door for 2 minutes, etc.
Edit: and to anyone quibbling with my McDonald's example saying you can in fact bring tacos in, that was just an illustration. I can find plenty of examples of one establishment not letting people bring food in from somewhere else.
I just use Freetube either way. I can't stand autoplaying videos or suggestions, popups, etc.
The current US Federal Trade Commission is quite agressive compared to other FTCs historically.
On the other hand, if everyone in the world had your lifestyle the world would be much more wealthy and could make a lot of positive changes.
I think the answer is yes.
Public services aren't efficient, but they can surely change themselves more efficiently than they can force a multi billion dollar company to change its ways.
I'm surprised you're not more worried about the government outsourcing its functions to a company you seem very suspicious of.
If the government decided to have vital public meetings only in a private venue you have to be a member of or something, the proper fix is not to force the club to accept everyone, it's to have the government stop having vital meetings in private places.
I also don't see a problem because everything of value these video streaming services offer is replaceable by one of the many other streaming services. The fact that YouTube is the biggest or most recognized does not change anything for me. The fact that there is some content that is only on YouTube doesn't, either. That's a normal thing that happens in an economy. Ford dealers only sell Ford cars, Coca Cola doesn't sell Pepsi, etc.