16 ms·
Obviously we don't need an alternative very much since we aren't enforcing the laws about interoperability that have always applied to every other sort of monop
by Nomentatus 10y ago
Obviously we don't need an alternative very much since we aren't enforcing the laws about interoperability that have always applied to every other sort of monopoly, such as railroads - you aren't allowed to have your own rail gauge, by law, for a reason; others have to be able to take those railcars on their line, too. Similarly, back in the day Bell was forced to interoperate with other telephone networks, that wasn't a choice. If other networks could interoperate transparently with Facebook there would be no shortage of alternatives. When things get really, really desperate... maybe at long last, despite our captured legislatures, it's time to apply the normal legal remedies that were good enough for our great-grandfathers.
- rexpop 10y agoWho, if not our "captured legislatures" is to act? "We don't need an alternative very much" today, perhaps, but I fear this may be like saying the Titanic had little need for life rafts _when in dry dock_.
- bigbugbag 10y agoThere are many alternatives around already. The issue is not alternatives, it is people not using and staying facebook's used.
- rexpop 10y agoIf the issue is users' behavior, then the fault lies with the designers.
- Nomentatus 10y agoThere are always alternatives to networks with monopoly power from the network effect. Which is why our Great-Grandfathers (the Great-Grandmothers weren't able to vote, then) passed those laws.
- Nomentatus 10y agoI was being ironic - I forget that Americans still don't look for irony energetically. But it's still a good question, whether we have functioning democracies, or not.
- Nomentatus 10y agoAppreciate the downvotes! Believe it or not, Murcans, when you study as a writer in foreign parts, they actually teach you quite emphatically simply never to use irony - and in particular ironic humor - if Americans are part of your audience. Never.
- rexpop 10y agoAnd this is because the American hippocampus has been rendered semi-inoperable by generations of industry-lobbied, federally-subsidized corn-syrup-induced diabetes.
- rexpop 10y agoIn fact communication is difficult, and its failure is always the fault of the communicator.
- Nomentatus 10y agoAnd using irony was, as I think I've noted, a fault on my part, given the forum population.
- tyingq 10y agoI believe it is the designation as a "common carrier" that keeps them from using their own rail gauge. We did recently, in the US, decide that ISPs are common carriers.
- johnchristopher 10y agoI am not sure I get monopoly laws right so bear with me but is this correct: Let's imagine it's 2002 and I install a good old phpbb or something on my webserver. Now, everyone gets on my forum. I slowly add innovative features such as gif in signature, style switcher and private message. Why should I be forced to open the private inbox to forums from the outside so people not register on my site can send messages to people on my site ? Is it okay "just" because I have 2 billions people on my forum ? That's what's happening right ?
- Nomentatus 10y agoYou would be happy with railroads all different gauges, ok, well then you would. But if railway cars can go across country the whole economy benefits. If monopolies seem all good to you, read more economic history.
- johnchristopher 10y agoOh no, my first hunch is that the fictive case I made up is a monopoly and is bound to hurt in the long-term (just as Facebook is I believe). I just want to be sure I am not missing something in the reasoning, thus the over simplification.
- Nomentatus 10y agoIn theory the more users you have the more subject you are to anti-monopoly laws. But in corrupt systems the more users you have the more consideration, laws and legislators you can buy.
- paulddraper 10y agoBasically correct. Microsoft had a monopoly; Apple did not.
- Nomentatus 10y agoThe courts disagree and have in fact dinged Apple for abusing market power: http://macdailynews.com/2013/08/28/u-s-a-v-apple-judge-denise-cote-says-apple-needs-third-party-supervision-after-blatant-ebook-price-fixing/ http://macdailynews.com/2013/08/28/u-s-a-v-apple-judge-denis...