2.7B youtube users is about 1/3 of the people on Earth, and a solid majority of internet users.

India has the most youtube users at 570M+, though the US is highest in youtube traffic. Japan also has high youtube traffic per capita.

https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/youtube-users-statis...

1/3 isn't a majority.

X = Y/3, X = Z, Y != Z

The GGP said

> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean.

The GP challenged this.

The parent defended this by point out the 1/3rd figure.

I pointed out that 1/3rd isn't a majority so the GGP was still wrong.

So yes I agree. X or Z aren't 'the majority' of Y.

2.7B youtube users is about 1/3 of the people on Earth

2.7B youtube users is a solid majority of internet users

unsure how you're getting

1/3 of the people on Earth is a solid majority of people on Earth

If you read the quote in my comment, that you're responding to

> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean

"majority of people on Earth are Youtube users"

You need to read the full thread to get the context. The claim being disputed is the following

> But the thing is, a majority of people on Earth are Youtube users, so what the heck does that even mean?

"Majority of people on Earth" is not the same thing as "majority of internet users"

So Youtube will demonetize you if you hurt someone with an internet connection, but not if you hurt someone too poor to afford one?

I doubt "we take action to protect the community" has a clear legal definition. Their "community" could be people without an internet connection too (e.g. everyone in Los Angeles because they have an office there).

Since this is obviously not about their "community" but about protecting the brand, I doubt they have put much thought into defining any of the terms in the statement.