4 ms·

> Facebook probably is a monopoly A monopoly of...? They key part of a "monopoly" claim is defining the market. Facebook has a monopoly communications? No. Do

> Facebook probably is a monopoly A monopoly of...? They key part of a "monopoly" claim is defining the market. Facebook has a monopoly communications? No. Does it have a monopoly on online communications? No. Does it have a monopoly on mobile communications? No. Does it have a monopoly on social interactions? No. Does it have a monopoly on online social interactions? No. Does it have a monopoly on social networks? No. Does it have a monopoly on online social networks? No. Does it have a monopoly on ads? No. Does it have a monopoly on online ads? No. Does it have a monopoly on online ads in social networks? No. Does Facebook have a monopoly on serving ads in an online social network that is blue-themed? No. Does Facebook has a monopoly on a on serving ads in an online social network that is blue-themed and has a feed? Not even that! Does Facebook has a monopoly on a on serving ads in an online social network that is blue-themed and has a feed and is owned by a Harvard dropout? Yes. That is the complication of a monopoly claim, you need to define the market. If you define it too narrowly, you'll always have a monopoly. If you define it too broadly, you'll never have a monopoly.

buboard 8y ago
does it have a monopoly on people's online time and attention? Yes.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Nope. But hey, I'm happy to change my opinion if you present data.
  - buboard 8y ago
    i dont know if it counts as monopoly, however you defined monopoly rather abstractly. Monopoly is defined by choice and not by the definition of the market. In terms of e.g. network lock-in facebook doesnt have an alternative. There was competition at a time , but then every alternative 'real name' network gave up. Where else would you publish the kind of personal stuff that people post on facebook. where else would you learn about your friends?
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > Monopoly is defined by choice and not by the definition of the market. No, monopoly absolutely depends on the definition of the market. If you define the market as "online human communication" Facebook doesn't have a monopoly. If you define the market as "online human communication with a feed that uses shades of blue and is owned by a Harvard dropout" then facebook has a monopoly. > In terms of e.g. network lock-in facebook doesnt have an alternative. Sure it does. You can talk to people, call people, send a letter, post a notice on a bulletin board, use an online forum, send an email, use an email group, post it on Google+ (it still exists), send a snap, dm on twitter, post on twitter, post on Hacker News, etc. It entirely depends on how you define the market.
      - mjevans 8y ago
        I think I did an adequate job in defining a definition above. Ask a representative sample of 'random' people * For an alternative * That still exists * That they actually considered using within the last year Facebook fails this test because they have literally no competition within the same niche* (that the average person, on average, is aware of anyway). Twitter as a specialized platform is in somewhat a similar area, however people can just group chat on several other platforms and if you re-framed the question like this people could probably come up with things they would or already use as an alternative. "If [THING] suddenly went out of business, what would you use instead?"
        ucaetano 8y ago
        I Facebook went out of business, people would instead message more on other messaging platforms, text people more, read news in other news platforms and so on. There are plenty of opportunities for all of those options. Consider, for example, the Cola soda market. There are countries in which Coca-Cola holds 95% or more of the market share for Colas, or even for sodas. Does that make it a monopoly? No. Because Colas are just one type of soda drinks, and soda drinks are just one type of drink. If Coca-Cola disappeared and there was no other Cola drink available, Cola drinkers would drink a lemon-flavored drink, or fruit juice, or just plain water. So your definition doesn't work, exactly because you didn't define the market. And hey, this isn't just my opinion, it is how monopoly is defined in economics. Particularly regarding something that we haven't talked about yet, which is monopoly pricing. There is no monopoly pricing in any market that Facebook operates. Quite the opposite, actually, ad prices have been going down continuously. It is always interesting to see people in HN trying to recreate economics from first principles.

buboard 8y ago

does it have a monopoly on people's online time and attention? Yes.

ucaetano 8y ago
Nope. But hey, I'm happy to change my opinion if you present data.
- buboard 8y ago
  i dont know if it counts as monopoly, however you defined monopoly rather abstractly. Monopoly is defined by choice and not by the definition of the market. In terms of e.g. network lock-in facebook doesnt have an alternative. There was competition at a time , but then every alternative 'real name' network gave up. Where else would you publish the kind of personal stuff that people post on facebook. where else would you learn about your friends?
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > Monopoly is defined by choice and not by the definition of the market. No, monopoly absolutely depends on the definition of the market. If you define the market as "online human communication" Facebook doesn't have a monopoly. If you define the market as "online human communication with a feed that uses shades of blue and is owned by a Harvard dropout" then facebook has a monopoly. > In terms of e.g. network lock-in facebook doesnt have an alternative. Sure it does. You can talk to people, call people, send a letter, post a notice on a bulletin board, use an online forum, send an email, use an email group, post it on Google+ (it still exists), send a snap, dm on twitter, post on twitter, post on Hacker News, etc. It entirely depends on how you define the market.
    - mjevans 8y ago
      I think I did an adequate job in defining a definition above. Ask a representative sample of 'random' people * For an alternative * That still exists * That they actually considered using within the last year Facebook fails this test because they have literally no competition within the same niche* (that the average person, on average, is aware of anyway). Twitter as a specialized platform is in somewhat a similar area, however people can just group chat on several other platforms and if you re-framed the question like this people could probably come up with things they would or already use as an alternative. "If [THING] suddenly went out of business, what would you use instead?"
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        I Facebook went out of business, people would instead message more on other messaging platforms, text people more, read news in other news platforms and so on. There are plenty of opportunities for all of those options. Consider, for example, the Cola soda market. There are countries in which Coca-Cola holds 95% or more of the market share for Colas, or even for sodas. Does that make it a monopoly? No. Because Colas are just one type of soda drinks, and soda drinks are just one type of drink. If Coca-Cola disappeared and there was no other Cola drink available, Cola drinkers would drink a lemon-flavored drink, or fruit juice, or just plain water. So your definition doesn't work, exactly because you didn't define the market. And hey, this isn't just my opinion, it is how monopoly is defined in economics. Particularly regarding something that we haven't talked about yet, which is monopoly pricing. There is no monopoly pricing in any market that Facebook operates. Quite the opposite, actually, ad prices have been going down continuously. It is always interesting to see people in HN trying to recreate economics from first principles.