> Just because something has market dominance does not make it a monopoly.

Isn't that the definition of a monopoly though? Just because something is a monopoly, that doesn't mean it necessarily has anti-competitive practices or meddles in government. (though that usually follows)

For what it's worth I agree that YouTube isn't abusing their market position, but it's important the semantics are clear.

I guess so, but thats the problem with language that isnt specific enough. What I feel people are discussing and what I was referring too was more properly called an illegal monopoly… technically having market domination is also a monopoly, but thats not a crime.

The Hypothetical Monopolist Test is a primary method used to define relevant markets in antitrust cases. It assesses whether a hypothetical monopolist could profitably impose a small but significant and non-transitory increase in price (SSNIP).

Steps in the Test Market Definition: Identify the relevant product and geographic market.

Price Increase Assessment: Determine if a hypothetical monopolist could raise prices without losing too many customers.

Iterative Process: If the price increase is profitable, the market is correctly defined. If not, the market definition is expanded to include substitutes.

To establish a monopolization claim, two main elements must be proven:

Possession of Monopoly Power: The firm must have significant and durable market power.

Willful Acquisition or Maintenance: The firm must have obtained or maintained this power through improper means, rather than through competition on the merits.