Sure, that would have been one honest option. Dumping an artificially free option into the market crowded out other options from being adopted or even developed.
This is how all tech companies got funded, and still do. YouTube doesn't even have much of a network effect, it's just that nobody made anything comparable that was actually better.
> This is how all tech companies got funded, and still do
This isn't really germane to what's right. We all know how the surveillance industry operates - subsidizing investment, lock in, and then enshittification. And sure, it seems to work for it in a pragmatic sense. But that doesn't mean we should find virtue in rewarding it, which was what the original argument is about.
> YouTube doesn't even have much of a network effect
I'm not interested in arguing with goalposts being moved, especially by ignorance.
