6 ms·

80% of the country using facebook 'regularly' is not a monopoly. And even if it were, what are they monopolizing, social media in general? Just because 80% of t

80% of the country using facebook 'regularly' is not a monopoly. And even if it were, what are they monopolizing, social media in general? Just because 80% of the country visits McDonald's regularly does not make them a monopoly.

H4CK3RM4N 10y ago
There's also a scary number of people in developing countries who will report that they use Facebook, but not 'the internet'. Developing countries are the market Facebook could dominate, in the same way Microsoft dominated computers for normal people.
- scriptkiddy 10y ago
  This is the scariest thing. Facebook tried to basically monopolize the Internet in India and other developing countries with Internet.org. There's a bunch of info out there on the subject, but this wired article is a good introduction: https://www.wired.com/2015/05/backlash-facebooks-free-internet-service-grows/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/backlash-facebooks-free-intern...
danieldk 10y ago
That is a bad analogy. You can start a family diner tomorrow and compete with McDonalds. There is nothing preventing that 80% to eat at your place. However, you cannot start a social network tomorrow and expect to make a reasonable income. People will not join your network, because their friends are not there. Facebook holds a significant part of the world population hostage, because they cannot 'dine' somewhere else. Contrast this with a situation where social networks are federated. You could opt to go to a competing network because their service is better, without losing contacts to your friends. I would not know if that qualifies as a monopoly legally, but there is clearly a huge difference between McDonalds and Facebook.
- icebraining 10y ago
  While network effects exist and are worrying, this is a bit too strong - you can have two accounts concurrently, and many people do. Hence why FB had to buy Instagram and Whatsapp, and why Snapshat has more than a hundred million users.
  - danielpatrick 10y ago
    "You can have two accounts concurrently"... on all the sites that Facebook owns. They tried to buy Snapchat too. Some interesting reading on how we might measure the unusual cost of Facebook's monopoly to society. https://stratechery.com/2017/facebook-and-the-cost-of-monopoly/ https://stratechery.com/2017/facebook-and-the-cost-of-monopo...
danielpatrick 10y ago
Under normal circumstances 80% would begin to get the Antitrust drums beating.
- jpttsn 10y ago
  80% of people using something is not the same as 80% market share.

H4CK3RM4N 10y ago

There's also a scary number of people in developing countries who will report that they use Facebook, but not 'the internet'. Developing countries are the market Facebook could dominate, in the same way Microsoft dominated computers for normal people.

scriptkiddy 10y ago
This is the scariest thing. Facebook tried to basically monopolize the Internet in India and other developing countries with Internet.org. There's a bunch of info out there on the subject, but this wired article is a good introduction: https://www.wired.com/2015/05/backlash-facebooks-free-internet-service-grows/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/backlash-facebooks-free-intern...

danieldk 10y ago

That is a bad analogy. You can start a family diner tomorrow and compete with McDonalds. There is nothing preventing that 80% to eat at your place. However, you cannot start a social network tomorrow and expect to make a reasonable income. People will not join your network, because their friends are not there. Facebook holds a significant part of the world population hostage, because they cannot 'dine' somewhere else. Contrast this with a situation where social networks are federated. You could opt to go to a competing network because their service is better, without losing contacts to your friends. I would not know if that qualifies as a monopoly legally, but there is clearly a huge difference between McDonalds and Facebook.

icebraining 10y ago
While network effects exist and are worrying, this is a bit too strong - you can have two accounts concurrently, and many people do. Hence why FB had to buy Instagram and Whatsapp, and why Snapshat has more than a hundred million users.
- danielpatrick 10y ago
  "You can have two accounts concurrently"... on all the sites that Facebook owns. They tried to buy Snapchat too. Some interesting reading on how we might measure the unusual cost of Facebook's monopoly to society. https://stratechery.com/2017/facebook-and-the-cost-of-monopoly/ https://stratechery.com/2017/facebook-and-the-cost-of-monopo...

danielpatrick 10y ago

Under normal circumstances 80% would begin to get the Antitrust drums beating.

jpttsn 10y ago
80% of people using something is not the same as 80% market share.