8 ms·
Other people could make competitors, and more importantly, people who are using Facebook could switch. It happened to MySpace. Makes a lot more sense to me than
by Kequc 9y ago
Other people could make competitors, and more importantly, people who are using Facebook could switch. It happened to MySpace. Makes a lot more sense to me than turning it into a public utility or breaking it up anyway.
Just stop using it, it really isn't that important.
- yequalsx 9y agoFacebook learned the lesson of MySpace; buy any competitor that looks like it's gaining traction. Facebook has the resources to engage in this strategy. It's going to be a lot harder to disrupt Facebook as a company than it was to disrupt MySpace. I'm not claiming this is a reason to regulate Facebook. Just that saying MySpace was disrupted is not a reason to not regulate Facebook.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoFacebook won't be able to buy up a distributed open-source p2p alternative.
- pat2man 9y agoA p2p alternative isn't likely to be able to compete due to the massive income generated by Facebook's advertising platform.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y agoNot necessarily. For instance, Facebook still can't get rid of email.
- xj9 9y agoactually, that's the point of p2p: it doesn't cost developers anything. I don't have to "win" at market share to make it either, just enough mass to develop a self-sustaining community of users and developers. I don't have to make a ton of money for it to be worth it either. my infrastructure costs are effectively zero, so I'm really paying for my time. I can use liberapay and crypto to take donations/tips, I can sell my expertise in p2p as a contractor, &c. the most important point is that I can keep going indefinitely as long as I don't get bored, because you can't outspend me if it doesn't cost me anything to keep going.
- yequalsx 9y agoI suspect that state actors won’t allow such a system to reach critical mass.
- quickthrower2 9y ago> a distributed open-source p2p alternative Like talking to people, in real life: face to face? They're making a dent in that.
- fahayekwasright 9y agoFacebook has sufficient accumulation of capital to make this impossible. Build something good enough to challenge them and you will get purchased.
- dreamdu5t 9y agoFacebook does not have the power to force people to sell to them. They do not have the power to force people to use Facebook. That's a fact. It's a free website, that people use of their own accord, at their own discretion. Just like someone that chooses to read NYT. The call to regulate a free press (Facebook) is far more disturbing than any targeted advertising Facebook is engaged in.
- fahayekwasright 9y agoFB’s power is not a binary of either “can force” or “can’t force.” But they can offer an amount so high it’s hard to say no, and they can manipulate their users’ attention in ever more complex and subtle ways. I don’t consider FB a pure evil, just a potential danger. Their moral hazard is comparable to that of a heroin dealer—-they are incentivized to get you using the product as much as possible, regardless of the possibility that more than a small amount could be harmful.
- armenarmen 9y agoOffering an extremely high price that surpasses the sellers expectations + potential buyers remorse and making a sale "hard to say no to" is not force. It is not Don Corleone making an offer they cannot refuse. Let's not equate voluntary exchange with a mugging
- fahayekwasright 9y agoI agree, it’s not force. I just don’t think “force” in the literal sense is required to make it a scary situation.
- alphaalpha101 9y ago