5 ms·

I'm not sure if you just read the first four words of my post and stopped or what (and I don't necessarily blame you, as it's long), but I address this supposed

I'm not sure if you just read the first four words of my post and stopped or what (and I don't necessarily blame you, as it's long), but I address this supposed "value of FB" in the parent comment. FB is "where your friends are" not due to an inherent physical limitation, as in the connected hardware that network effects originally described, but due to our willful dispensation of those rights to internet companies by legal means. The only reason your friend's data is stuck in Facebook is because our laws allow Facebook to enforce a monopoly on it by allowing Facebook to block any real access by potential competitors. Unlike Ethernet, fax machines, or telephones, there is no physical constraint that would impede compatibility. It's all in our heads. The developers of the competing service(s) can and have made adapters to make that junction transparent. The law does not really allow them to be used. There is no more reason that users should be forced to use Facebook to view such data than there is reason that users should be forced to use Internet Explorer to view web pages. There is no reason that Power Ventures should be illegal and Firefox should be legal; they are both browsing programs made to display, present, and interact with data.

nl 9y ago
FB is "where your friends are" not due to an inherent physical limitation, as in the connected hardware that network effects originally described No, network effects was never about the hardware, it was a formula which valued a network by the number of connections on it. Networks become more valuable the more connections you have. The content is often orthogonal. See Snapchat, where the content is literally thrown away,
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  First, whether the observed "network effects" phenomenon originally referred to hardware connectivity or not, the argument stands because there are ways to transparently bridge that connectivity gap which we can't use only due to legal fiat. There is nothing except law standing between getting the data out of Facebook and into a competing client. That client will still have an uphill battle to fight, but at least they'll be allowed on the playing field, instead of just left screaming from the sidelines "Hey, come over to my playing field instead! One at a time!" Consider telephony. You don't have to say "Wait, is this an AT&T or a T-Mobile number?" when you get someone's cell phone number, because AT&T and T-Mo have equipment behind the scenes that works together (much to AT&T's chagrin). That should be equally applicable to the digital world, but the CFAA and other laws allow incumbents to shut down any attempt to provide compatibility. That's the issue. ---- Secondly, I didn't want to nitpick this because it's tedious, but since you've reiterated it, the very portion of the Wikipedia article you quoted indicates that Metcalfe's Law was originally about hardware connections, in multiple places! Here's the quote: >First formulated in this form by George Gilder in 1993,[1] and attributed to Robert Metcalfe in regard to Ethernet, Metcalfe's law was originally presented, c. 1980, not in terms of users, but rather of "compatible communicating devices" (for example, fax machines, telephones, etc.).[2] Only later with the globalization of the Internet did this law carry over to users and networks as its original intent was to describe Ethernet purchases and connections.[3] (See emphasized portions, which, again, repeat that network effects originally referred to "Ethernet purchases and connections" and "fax machines, telephones, etc."; that is, physical hardware that needed to be compatible with the physical telecommunications network. I haven't read the source documents or done tons of research into this, so if the WP article is incorrect, by all means please edit and correct it.) People assumed the extrapolation held as they observed similar "network effects" on things like Facebook, but this is misleading, because there is no real physical limitation keeping people on Facebook. There are real physical limitations locking people into the hardware they buy. The thing that makes Facebook's network effective is that the government has made it illegal to try to break their lock-in, not because that lock-in is natural as it is in the case of hardware. It's an underground extension of IP rights. --- I'm not saying an FB competitor wouldn't have an uphill battle getting people to switch, but they'd at least be welcome on the same playing field. Imagine the consequences if we told phone companies that they could start suing anyone who tried to dial one of their numbers without the company's explicit permission. Imagine if we told them that in some cases, we'll even send people to federal prison for it! Overnight, you'd have to switch to AT&T to call people on AT&T; it wouldn't matter that you personally preferred T-Mobile, Project Fi, or any other carrier. You'd have to go to whoever the people you most wanted to call had, or maintain two separate cell numbers. That's what the CFAA does for companies like Facebook and Google. If I want to "dial" Bob's social feed and Bob happens to have chosen Facebook as his social carrier, Facebook tells me I have to play by their rules. If someone tries to say "We made it so you can view Bob's social feed under conditions you may find more amenable", that person gets sued into oblivion.

nl 9y ago

FB is "where your friends are" not due to an inherent physical limitation, as in the connected hardware that network effects originally described No, network effects was never about the hardware, it was a formula which valued a network by the number of connections on it. Networks become more valuable the more connections you have. The content is often orthogonal. See Snapchat, where the content is literally thrown away,

cookiecaper 9y ago
First, whether the observed "network effects" phenomenon originally referred to hardware connectivity or not, the argument stands because there are ways to transparently bridge that connectivity gap which we can't use only due to legal fiat. There is nothing except law standing between getting the data out of Facebook and into a competing client. That client will still have an uphill battle to fight, but at least they'll be allowed on the playing field, instead of just left screaming from the sidelines "Hey, come over to my playing field instead! One at a time!" Consider telephony. You don't have to say "Wait, is this an AT&T or a T-Mobile number?" when you get someone's cell phone number, because AT&T and T-Mo have equipment behind the scenes that works together (much to AT&T's chagrin). That should be equally applicable to the digital world, but the CFAA and other laws allow incumbents to shut down any attempt to provide compatibility. That's the issue. ---- Secondly, I didn't want to nitpick this because it's tedious, but since you've reiterated it, the very portion of the Wikipedia article you quoted indicates that Metcalfe's Law was originally about hardware connections, in multiple places! Here's the quote: >First formulated in this form by George Gilder in 1993,[1] and attributed to Robert Metcalfe in regard to Ethernet, Metcalfe's law was originally presented, c. 1980, not in terms of users, but rather of "compatible communicating devices" (for example, fax machines, telephones, etc.).[2] Only later with the globalization of the Internet did this law carry over to users and networks as its original intent was to describe Ethernet purchases and connections.[3] (See emphasized portions, which, again, repeat that network effects originally referred to "Ethernet purchases and connections" and "fax machines, telephones, etc."; that is, physical hardware that needed to be compatible with the physical telecommunications network. I haven't read the source documents or done tons of research into this, so if the WP article is incorrect, by all means please edit and correct it.) People assumed the extrapolation held as they observed similar "network effects" on things like Facebook, but this is misleading, because there is no real physical limitation keeping people on Facebook. There are real physical limitations locking people into the hardware they buy. The thing that makes Facebook's network effective is that the government has made it illegal to try to break their lock-in, not because that lock-in is natural as it is in the case of hardware. It's an underground extension of IP rights. --- I'm not saying an FB competitor wouldn't have an uphill battle getting people to switch, but they'd at least be welcome on the same playing field. Imagine the consequences if we told phone companies that they could start suing anyone who tried to dial one of their numbers without the company's explicit permission. Imagine if we told them that in some cases, we'll even send people to federal prison for it! Overnight, you'd have to switch to AT&T to call people on AT&T; it wouldn't matter that you personally preferred T-Mobile, Project Fi, or any other carrier. You'd have to go to whoever the people you most wanted to call had, or maintain two separate cell numbers. That's what the CFAA does for companies like Facebook and Google. If I want to "dial" Bob's social feed and Bob happens to have chosen Facebook as his social carrier, Facebook tells me I have to play by their rules. If someone tries to say "We made it so you can view Bob's social feed under conditions you may find more amenable", that person gets sued into oblivion.