> Facebook is not in a traditional 'monopoly'. Just because you invented a new definition of the word monopoly, doesn't mean it is relevant. It isn't. > The t

> Facebook is not in a traditional 'monopoly'. Just because you invented a new definition of the word monopoly, doesn't mean it is relevant. It isn't. > The term 'monopoly' is conventially used in connection with the sale of traditional goods, like soft drinks and train services. No. At least not when talking about economics. By people who don't understand economics, maybe. > It represents a boolean state, and was created to describe situations that arise in established economic models. Also no (to the boolean part). > The new trade in information, such as propagated by Facebook, does not follow many of the established rules of the trade of goods and services. You have to prove that it changed the definition of monopoly. You didn't. It didn't. > The network effects of buying soda are weak. Maybe if my friends "prefer the taste of X" I will buy that too. But their choosing a given brand of soda does not preclude me from using a different brand of soda. Network effects don't create a monopoly, just barriers to entry in a specific market. But that market might have competing markets, or replacements. > If Facebook controls the flow of information, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, big social outcomes change. For example the election of the current president of the United States, and countless other decisions round the world. Doesn't imply a monopoly. > We need new vocabulary to talk about the effects that technology has brought about. No extant word is a perfect fit. That is not a good reason to not try to talk about them. "I'm wrong about the way I use the term monopoly, so we should change the term so I'm right". Nice try. You were able to get almost ever single point wrong.