4 ms·

From an extremely pure free-market conservative/capitalist approach, sure, there is nothing wrong with this, they can do what they want. From a basic governmen

From an extremely pure free-market conservative/capitalist approach, sure, there is nothing wrong with this, they can do what they want. From a basic governmental regulation (Hayek) monopoly approach, FB is the incumbent and it will be extremely difficult for anyone else to gain a foothold here. Regulation ought to make it easier for others to approach the space. They are the single biggest voice in the news at this point, and whatever stances they support has an inestimable advantage in ways that far outstrip campaign finance contributions or lobbying. They may have to be governmentally disrupted to keep their power from becoming too great. From a consumer labeling perspective, Facebook is profiting off improperly calling articles "trending" that are just their preferred way to view the world. I just wonder if these articles go far enough to collapse any trust.

acheron 10y ago
FB is the incumbent and it will be extremely difficult for anyone else to gain a foothold here "Will MySpace Ever Lose Its Monopoly?" (2007): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.comment https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business....
- brokentone 10y ago
  I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons MySpace lost.
  - ci5er 10y ago
    You certainly do not. To your point, back in the day, I was having lunch with David Boies (yeah, I know, name dropping, but relevant) and re: Microsoft he said that his position was that EVERY company should have the opportunity to become a monopoly, but then to not be able to use that power of monopoly to deny that chance to others. My concern with regulatory or judicial constraints here is -- they're always too late. Be it IBM in the 60s or ATT in the 80s or Microsoft in the late-90s/early-2ks, by the time the government gets around to doing anything, the company is already being eroded from beneath. I think the only (national) example I can think of, in the US, is AT&T, which was able to keep their position because of government licensure. i.e. Natural monopolies don't occur as often as people claim. Incumbency buys patrimony. Maybe this should go to GP: IF a monopoly arises, AND that entity takes advantage of their monopoly position (reduced quality for price, outrageous margins) almost always, a challenger will appear. And get funded.

acheron 10y ago

FB is the incumbent and it will be extremely difficult for anyone else to gain a foothold here "Will MySpace Ever Lose Its Monopoly?" (2007): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.comment https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business....

brokentone 10y ago
I don't think I need to explain the myriad reasons MySpace lost.
- ci5er 10y ago
  You certainly do not. To your point, back in the day, I was having lunch with David Boies (yeah, I know, name dropping, but relevant) and re: Microsoft he said that his position was that EVERY company should have the opportunity to become a monopoly, but then to not be able to use that power of monopoly to deny that chance to others. My concern with regulatory or judicial constraints here is -- they're always too late. Be it IBM in the 60s or ATT in the 80s or Microsoft in the late-90s/early-2ks, by the time the government gets around to doing anything, the company is already being eroded from beneath. I think the only (national) example I can think of, in the US, is AT&T, which was able to keep their position because of government licensure. i.e. Natural monopolies don't occur as often as people claim. Incumbency buys patrimony. Maybe this should go to GP: IF a monopoly arises, AND that entity takes advantage of their monopoly position (reduced quality for price, outrageous margins) almost always, a challenger will appear. And get funded.