3 ms·

You're trying to make a comparison to the regulation of common carrier utilities but you're missing an important distinction. Regulation of certain utilities i

by ende 10y ago

You're trying to make a comparison to the regulation of common carrier utilities but you're missing an important distinction. Regulation of certain utilities is justifiable because those utilities enjoy a natural monopoly granted and empowered by the government (usually due to the limitations of land based infrastructures which naturally prevent market competition). Facebook enjoys no such monopoly. Other digital social networks can and do compete with it. If you don't like what facebook does, you can personally regulate it by deactivating your account.

xiaoma 10y ago
> "If you don't like what facebook does, you can personally regulate it by deactivating your account." Likewise if someone didn't like the way AT&T's monopoly operated in the 70s, they could simply deactivate their account. However, then as now with a Facebook account, it would have been a self-limiting choice. Once a communication network has the majority of people in a region on it, it becomes nearly impossible to compete with directly and it also wields great power in relation to its users.
- ende 10y ago
  It's not the same thing though. The anti-competetive behavior of a company in the telecommunications industry is grounded (literally) in the natural barrier to entry that comes with the immense investment and government authorization involved in land based infrastructure. These are necessary 'practical' monopolies that are purposely created by the state in order to regulate them as public utilizes and because it is impractical to allow multiple overlapping land infrastructures. Facebook does not fall anywhere close to this category of communications network. There is no barrier to entry created by Facebook's existence. Multiple other social networks can and do exist, and not only that but you can simultaneously participate in all of them. They are not mutually exclusive. Facebook is not a monopoly, it's just really popular. Finally, Facebook is not a monopoly for the very simple reason that you are not a customer of Facebook. Facebook does not provide you any service that you have paid for in an economic exchange. Facebook's customers are advertisers, and the advertisement industry is anything but a monopoly.

by ende 10y ago

xiaoma 10y ago

> "If you don't like what facebook does, you can personally regulate it by deactivating your account." Likewise if someone didn't like the way AT&T's monopoly operated in the 70s, they could simply deactivate their account. However, then as now with a Facebook account, it would have been a self-limiting choice. Once a communication network has the majority of people in a region on it, it becomes nearly impossible to compete with directly and it also wields great power in relation to its users.

ende 10y ago
It's not the same thing though. The anti-competetive behavior of a company in the telecommunications industry is grounded (literally) in the natural barrier to entry that comes with the immense investment and government authorization involved in land based infrastructure. These are necessary 'practical' monopolies that are purposely created by the state in order to regulate them as public utilizes and because it is impractical to allow multiple overlapping land infrastructures. Facebook does not fall anywhere close to this category of communications network. There is no barrier to entry created by Facebook's existence. Multiple other social networks can and do exist, and not only that but you can simultaneously participate in all of them. They are not mutually exclusive. Facebook is not a monopoly, it's just really popular. Finally, Facebook is not a monopoly for the very simple reason that you are not a customer of Facebook. Facebook does not provide you any service that you have paid for in an economic exchange. Facebook's customers are advertisers, and the advertisement industry is anything but a monopoly.