My response to Pat on if they are a monopoly, which I don’t think they are.
What’s that?
T-Nation
Imma just send a picture of my kids with spaghetti on their head to my mum here on tnation… Ummm.
But there isn’t anything stopping someone else from starting up a competitor. We have seen it happen too (see Instagram, Pinterest, snap chat, etc.). If they could control those things I would agree with you. I don’t think just because they are the most popular that they are a monopoly.
Look at the definition of monopoly. I cut off number 2 only because the definition was “a board game”. Do Facebook or Twitter have any of those things?
NO! He lied about that? No way! I thought he was being honest the whole time. The man is a stalwart of clean unbiased journalism and to think he of all people lied about a twitter hack…
They are only conspiracies if they are not true. Unfortunately, they make Alex Jones look like a beacon of clean journalism.
Just having an alternative does not mean they are not a monopoly. That’s a bit like saying you don’t need a plane to travel because you have access to a push scooter and a rowboat. Microsoft was a monopoly even with Apple on the scene
But you are missing where the monopoly is. It’s not entirely in the software it is in the network of people they have on their platform that will not leave it and is very susceptible to suggestion.
The alternatives that might offer real competition are quickly bought up.
The solution is easy. You break up the bit people engage with. As I said in the other thread, when “Facebook” pulls this shit you move over to “Assbook” which maintains your network but all your shit moved to them.
Does that sound like an idea you oppose or would you prefer to continue seeing the shitshow these companies have been driving for the past few years?
Can you name me the alternatives to Facebook, twitter, and Alphabet (google) in their respective spaces on the internet? And try not to name companies that are under Alphabet’s umbrella. And then figure out how much of the market these little guys have.
Again, technically, Standard Oil didn’t have a monopoly. There were other oil companies.
Anti-trust litigation cases are already in there beginning phases. They will only be shutdown if Biden wins.
No, they were because they had exclusive control of a commodity. There were other oil companies that couldn’t transport their oil anywhere because standard oil controlled the rail ways and owned the only pipeline.
This would be a fair comparison if Facebook owned the internet and didn’t let competitors use the internet.
Does Taco Bell have a monopoly on tacos then? They sell by far the most tacos out of everyone else in the US.
Facebook currently has the best product. So what? Myspace used to have the best product, but not anymore.
They aren’t forced to sell though.
I don’t fully understand your example, and I don’t use social media much (don’t have Facebook or Twitter), so I haven’t been putting up with much.
A monopoly shouldn’t be based on how popular something is. They aren’t blocking competitors from entering the space. Their product isn’t a commodity. They currently don’t meet the definition of a monopoly is all I am saying. I admit they are the most popular. So what?
If you don’t understand how social media works and your examples include alternatives that most people think went out of business over a decade ago and who exited the market because of the monopoly you are arguing isn’t a monopoly, perhaps you shouldn’t comment on this one?
2 Likes
It doesn’t meet the definition of a monopoly. I realize that T-nation and Myspace are outdated and rarely used (I also listed more current, popular examples). My point with those is popularity isn’t what determines a monopoly.
If it is a monopoly, prove it, and if you do, I’ll accept it. Words have meaning. This is the definition of monopoly.
How do Facebook or Twitter meet the definition? Instagram, Pinterest, SnapChat all went out of business 10 years ago (or at least that is what people think)? I was unaware most people were that stupid. How about LinkedIn, last I checked, that was pretty popular.
We aren’t exactly talking about just Facebook and Twitter being the only options (this is old so the MAU’s are probably off).
I think you can make arguments around all of this that are and can be valid but the idea that Facebook or Twitter are the only places to interact with people doesn’t really hold up.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/buffer.com/library/social-media-sites/amp/
Fair enough.
1 Like
Nobody is saying this. Just like Microsoft software on an IBM was not the only way you could use a computer 10 years ago.
Anyway, this has sent me on a wild rabbit hole around what MySpace is now lol
I realize I was a bit harsh. I still don’t think they are a monopoly, but I get your point that it is the most popular medium. I think arguments can be made about the legality of what they do.
In this case, it appears likely that the New York Post had unverifiable claims. Is that misinformation? Is it okay for them to remove misinformation?
They are not a monopoly but when we try identify the competition we have a company that nobody realises still exist and a bunch of little known alternatives. Facebook’s revenue last year is about 1000x that of the entire value (!!!) of all these companies combined.
When an enormous and technology advanced company in an adjacent industry with all the resources in the world and access to the best talent try to compete they get clobbered (multiple times)
Monopoly.
1 Like
BTW, being a monopoly isn’t in and of itself an issue but when they begin exploiting the market, we have a problem.
The issue is just like folks didn’t understand a company that trades on information when they floated (everyone was going to move to the next social media thing that year too), we don’t really get what how a monopoly that trades on information impacts markets.
IMO the cluster we have seen in the past few years is largely driven by social media
I dropped off Facebook in 2010 BTW so you may consider me a nut in this debate haha
1 Like
[quote=“pat, post:462, topic:268345, full:true”]
Here some proof:
/quote]
This is a good example of why I only watch Kayleigh with the sound turned off. She stays hot that way.
They aren’t monopolies. If you think we need an alternative to those sites then Compete! I’m not on any of those platforms.
2 Likes
We do have examples where this has happened, and it isn’t a monopoly. TY for example at one point sold 99ish percent of bean filled stuffed animals. They were not a monopoly because of this fact. Other brands unsuccessfully tried to market similar products. That still didn’t make them a monopoly.
I understand Facebook has more power than ty. I see it as an unfortunate thing that we can’t do much about. I don’t think it is fair to break them up.
1 Like
I wonder who benefits?
The following term is now “standard language” for a reason: So and So said/did this, then insert social media platform here “exploded”, blah blah blah.