4 ms·

> Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider network effect platforms like social network as monopolies on ways of interacting with their users, and

> Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider network effect platforms like social network as monopolies on ways of interacting with their users, and restrict them from several behaviors like this one. This is not a monopoly, and monopolies themselves are not illegal. You mention antitrust laws but I am not sure what anticompetitive behavior is taking place here? The C&D itself is quite laughable, but speaking more generally, why should the network effect be regulated? Plenty of other communications networks are open, so any network effect of "walled gardens" ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product. There are so many methods of communication available today, calling any one of them a monopoly is a bit absurd. You may not like what WhatsApp are doing, but that's not reason for more regulation...that's reason to switch products. But just because you don't like the alternatives isn't a valid argument for increased regulation.

iMerNibor 8y ago
> superiority of the product It's not though. Once you become big and have reached critical mass you can pull off quite a lot of mediocre/bad stuff. Fact is the majority of people simply do not care as long as the product still works (they might not even be aware there's bad stuff going on behind the scenes) - too much effort to find a suitable alternative, convince everyone else to go to the same platform and so on
- qeternity 8y ago
  How do you think it got big in the first place? "Too much effort to find an alternative" is just a synonym for "superior".
  - yorwba 8y ago
    They start out by building a superior product; then that product gets big; then they realize they need to monetize; then the product stops being superior, but it still has everyone's contacts, so most users stay; then the product keeps getting worse until it's unbearable and everyone switches to the most popular superior alternative... WhatsApp is currently in the "no longer superior" phase.
    - qeternity 8y ago
      > then the product stops being superior, but it still has everyone's contacts, so most users stay You're just twisting words here. The fact that switching costs are too high means it's superior. You're defining superiority to be some very strict UX that you've decided. > then the product keeps getting worse until it's unbearable and everyone switches to the most popular superior alternative Exactly. Once it stops being superior than people switch.
      - bkor 8y ago
        > You're just twisting words here. The fact that switching costs are too high means it's superior. I don't see how high switching costs implies superior, nor how that's part of a definition for superior. For superior app I'd consider that to mean if it's better. It's also weird your usage of superior has shifted. You've stated it became bigger because it was superior; meaning superior is not about how much used it is. But you also define superior as having pretty much everyone use it. This seems to conflict, no?
        qeternity 8y ago
        What? I never said they were mutually exclusive? Far from a conflict, what you're describing is exactly the network effect: it both became large because it was superior, and it's size/growth contributed to it's superiority. This is the flywheel that is the network effect.
        zentiggr 8y ago
        If only that flywheel didn't throw off all common sense and "don't be evil" tendencies... greed dominates eventually and everyone pays the price until a critical tipping point event comes and everyone finally realizes they have to go now. Those tipping points are just too subtle until after a lot of damage has been done.
      - danaris 8y ago
        Except that the superiority, at this point, has nothing to do with the product itself. It is primarily—possibly solely—due to who else uses it. That is not something that WhatsApp chose, or designed, except in that they hoped that everyone would be using it. This is not a free market, where the product in question is something that one simply purchases and continues to purchase, and can switch to any other product freely. The products in this space are, to some extent, non-interchangeable (Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp may all offer online communication with other users, but if the users you want to contact are only on one of them, that is the only one that is useful to you), and there is a significant barrier to exit. So a product that no one would have willingly chosen to start using may still end up being used long after it is, objectively, inferior to every other offering in that product category—so long as the people using it still need to communicate with each other, and cannot easily coordinate a mass exodus to a different product.
  - ada1981 8y ago
    This comment gave me new perspective on my romantic relationship. Thank you. :)
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Plenty of other communications networks are open, so any network effect of "walled gardens" ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product. So, when people evidently complain that they feel the social pressure to use the walled garden even though they rather wouldn't ... then that ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product? Could you explain your reasoning behind that?
- qeternity 8y ago
  What explanation is necessary? You've laid it out already. It's like saying you feel pressure to drive a gasoline powered car instead of a coal powered one because gasoline is much more convenient. The network effect arises out of superiority over competition. The social pressure is a result of everyone using the same platform, which itself is a testament to the product.
  - vageli 8y ago
    In what way does ubiquity equate to superiority? Popularity does not confer superiority.
    - qeternity 8y ago
      Haha of course it does, though perhaps not to you. If there were a superior alternative, people would use it. You're just defining this problem so narrowly has only the app itself or something. It's the network, the integrations, the history, etc.
      - contras1970 8y ago
        McDonald's has the best food, right?
        qeternity 8y ago
        Define best. Best tasting, no. Heathliest, no. Some combination of taste, nutrients, affordability and convenience? Yes.

iMerNibor 8y ago

> superiority of the product It's not though. Once you become big and have reached critical mass you can pull off quite a lot of mediocre/bad stuff. Fact is the majority of people simply do not care as long as the product still works (they might not even be aware there's bad stuff going on behind the scenes) - too much effort to find a suitable alternative, convince everyone else to go to the same platform and so on

qeternity 8y ago
How do you think it got big in the first place? "Too much effort to find an alternative" is just a synonym for "superior".
- yorwba 8y ago
  They start out by building a superior product; then that product gets big; then they realize they need to monetize; then the product stops being superior, but it still has everyone's contacts, so most users stay; then the product keeps getting worse until it's unbearable and everyone switches to the most popular superior alternative... WhatsApp is currently in the "no longer superior" phase.
  - qeternity 8y ago
    > then the product stops being superior, but it still has everyone's contacts, so most users stay You're just twisting words here. The fact that switching costs are too high means it's superior. You're defining superiority to be some very strict UX that you've decided. > then the product keeps getting worse until it's unbearable and everyone switches to the most popular superior alternative Exactly. Once it stops being superior than people switch.
    - bkor 8y ago
      > You're just twisting words here. The fact that switching costs are too high means it's superior. I don't see how high switching costs implies superior, nor how that's part of a definition for superior. For superior app I'd consider that to mean if it's better. It's also weird your usage of superior has shifted. You've stated it became bigger because it was superior; meaning superior is not about how much used it is. But you also define superior as having pretty much everyone use it. This seems to conflict, no?
      - qeternity 8y ago
        What? I never said they were mutually exclusive? Far from a conflict, what you're describing is exactly the network effect: it both became large because it was superior, and it's size/growth contributed to it's superiority. This is the flywheel that is the network effect.
        zentiggr 8y ago
        If only that flywheel didn't throw off all common sense and "don't be evil" tendencies... greed dominates eventually and everyone pays the price until a critical tipping point event comes and everyone finally realizes they have to go now. Those tipping points are just too subtle until after a lot of damage has been done.
    - danaris 8y ago
      Except that the superiority, at this point, has nothing to do with the product itself. It is primarily—possibly solely—due to who else uses it. That is not something that WhatsApp chose, or designed, except in that they hoped that everyone would be using it. This is not a free market, where the product in question is something that one simply purchases and continues to purchase, and can switch to any other product freely. The products in this space are, to some extent, non-interchangeable (Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp may all offer online communication with other users, but if the users you want to contact are only on one of them, that is the only one that is useful to you), and there is a significant barrier to exit. So a product that no one would have willingly chosen to start using may still end up being used long after it is, objectively, inferior to every other offering in that product category—so long as the people using it still need to communicate with each other, and cannot easily coordinate a mass exodus to a different product.
- ada1981 8y ago
  This comment gave me new perspective on my romantic relationship. Thank you. :)

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> Plenty of other communications networks are open, so any network effect of "walled gardens" ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product. So, when people evidently complain that they feel the social pressure to use the walled garden even though they rather wouldn't ... then that ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product? Could you explain your reasoning behind that?

qeternity 8y ago
What explanation is necessary? You've laid it out already. It's like saying you feel pressure to drive a gasoline powered car instead of a coal powered one because gasoline is much more convenient. The network effect arises out of superiority over competition. The social pressure is a result of everyone using the same platform, which itself is a testament to the product.
- vageli 8y ago
  In what way does ubiquity equate to superiority? Popularity does not confer superiority.
  - qeternity 8y ago
    Haha of course it does, though perhaps not to you. If there were a superior alternative, people would use it. You're just defining this problem so narrowly has only the app itself or something. It's the network, the integrations, the history, etc.
    - contras1970 8y ago
      McDonald's has the best food, right?
      - qeternity 8y ago
        Define best. Best tasting, no. Heathliest, no. Some combination of taste, nutrients, affordability and convenience? Yes.