> "I dunno what to think of competition like this, at scale. This is a different flavour of capitalism." it's not a different flavor, it's simply not capitalis

> "I dunno what to think of competition like this, at scale. This is a different flavour of capitalism." it's not a different flavor, it's simply not capitalism. it's more akin fascism where wealth concentrates in the few, who then turn around and wield that as power through the state. our duty as citizens is to be vigilant against these sorts of concentrations, and counter-act them through democratic, social, and economic means (e.g., the recent sentimental shift regarding facebook). > "...normal, textbook laissez faire markets..." "normal" is so highly relativist to be meaningless (and "textbook" is redundant to it), and "laissez faire" is quite ambiguous. markets require rules because people will disagree and get into fights otherwise (if i have a gun, should i be able to shut you down?), so even a free market has regulations. rather than throwing out such loaded terms, let's debate which regulations will lead to a more stable and fair market. let's favor small businesses over large (e.g., remove corporate welfare and rein in the corporate veil) to minimize corruption and encourage innovation. let's make taxes more progressive (larger businesses benefit disproportionately from government spending, so it's only fair). let's level the playing field, which in a sense is another way of saying let's moderate those network effects.