YouTube was founded by 3 former PayPal employees and bought by Google for $1.65 billion just over a year after its creation. It launched its partner program in 2007 which is when people could start directly making money from the site - but for most big people on the platform, making money was the eventual goal anyway. There was always a plan for YouTube to make oodles of cash and for people to make money making videos on it.

If PeerTube doesn’t have some type of monetary incentive, nobody except for mild hobbyists making subpar content are going to migrate over.

Absolutely agreed that market capture is unethical, but that doesn’t have much to do with the legal basis of right to repair cases.

When written out like this, it seems simple as - but the most simple version really isn’t what’s at stake. Companies make and trademark specialized tools for their goods, to prevent third parties from providing repairs. Warrantys are written to keep a company from being liable for repair/replacement if a customer attempts to repair a product themselves.

Pretty much every case in the right to repair movement is a challenge to a legally acceptable means of market capture, that just happens to create a stupendously shitty consumer environment.

maybe they should need to maintain a certain percentage of high pop instances that federate with them. Basically establishing a standard of trust.

“At least 80% of instances with over 1,000 active users must federate with you to be a Lemmy starter instance.”

This guarantees that new users will see the majority of content, and the starter instances won’t be embroiled in federation wars. The % value and pop numbers can change to reduce it down to a manageable number of starter instances.