That doesn't make it a monopoly! My local big box grocery store has more visitors than my local corner store.

Any other video provider on the Internet is just as accessible. If YouTube went away tomorrow, videos would still exist on the Internet. Most videos posted to YouTube of any value would immediately show up elsewhere.

Have you considered YouTube is popular because it's at least a little bit curated? Heck, YouTube wouldn't even exist without ContentID.

Ok, overwhelming market leader then.

The rules for it should be carefully considered, since it is a unicorn.

You're begging the question. Overwhelming market leader means nothing -- it doesn't automatically create any new obligations or responsibilities.

You actually have to make the argument that an overwhelming market leader in an otherwise niche market requires them to give up their free speech, marketing ability, hosting limits, income, etc.

Even having a monopoly isn't illegal; a company actually has to be convicted of abusing a monopoly position for anything to be required of them.

Sure it does. It's called a 'trust', and its well-covered in corporate law.

And no, I don't have to prove anything. Just that a reasonable congress should have oversight over the single most watched communications channel on the planet.

This is just dead obvious. I can't believe there's any good faith in this discussion any more. Signing off.

A reasonable congress should have oversight?

What do you mean by that?