3 ms·

None of these companies have a monopoly, and even if they did monopolies should only be regulated when they sell things we must have to live. Monopolies for lux

None of these companies have a monopoly, and even if they did monopolies should only be regulated when they sell things we must have to live. Monopolies for luxury things are not a problem. Access to google and facebook are not essential things you need.

ivm 9y ago
Access to information is not a luxury. Google and Facebook appropriated the natural course of the evolution of information exchange between humans and should be regulated.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  You don't need access to Google and Facebook to access information, there is an entire giant network out there for sharing information beyond Google and Facebook; there is zero valid reason to regulate these companies.
  - ivm 9y ago
    Except they try to keep users out of these networks and inside their platforms while having an absolute market share. Every monopoly should be regulated and, preferably, broke up.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      > Every monopoly should be regulated and, preferably, broke up. No, they shouldn't be and the law doesn't agree with you. You have to be a bad actor before such laws apply, you shouldn't be broken up merely because no one else can compete.
      - ivm 9y ago
        > You have to be a bad actor It's just a matter of time – their bad acting grows and it has become more visible already.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        Ah the slippery slope, so basically you have no real argument then. We should punish them because they might do something wrong in the future, got it.