4 ms·
First you say that “monopoly isn’t important” and then go on to claim: Due to network effects, effective competition can't exist. And >Nothing about being do
by Pharmakon 8y ago
First you say that “monopoly isn’t important” and then go on to claim:
Due to network effects, effective competition can't exist.
And
>Nothing about being dominant in a market or network effects directly implies a monopoly.
In 2019, this just seems ridiculous. This has got to change.
And then
It's as though we're dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want to be a full time political vlogger, you hew to YouTube's rules and politics, or get bent.
Now first of all your last point is conflating the right to express yourself with the right to make a career on someone’s platform expressing yourself. The latter is not protected, but as you live in a free country you are welcome to try to change the law I guess. You can after all still be a full-time political vlogger without YouTuber, Alex Jones seems to manage it (unfortunately). It will be harder to find a mass audience and make money, but that isn’t protected and neither does it imply monopolistic practices.
As far as the need for network effects to be classified as monopolistic, I disagree, but again if you feel otherwise then by all means, try to get that passed into law. What isn’t acceptable is pretending or arguing as though it already is. I suspect that your attempt to pass such a law would be met with scorn and incredulity, because after all you’d be arguing for the inaliabel right to make a living spouting views online. As it stands no one is stopping you from attempting to do so, and no one owes it to you either.
- stcredzero 8y agoFirst you say that “monopoly isn’t important” and then go on to claim: The 20th century concept of "monopoly" is entirely insufficient. This is the underlying cause of the pseudo-paradox. Now first of all your last point is conflating the right to express yourself with the right to make a career on someone’s platform expressing yourself. Controlling monetization+virality/discovery is too potent a combination to let a single entity control for censorship purposes. As far as the need for network effects to be classified as monopolistic, I disagree It's hard to convince someone of a fact, if their bread and butter depend on their not acknowledging it. As it stands no one is stopping you from attempting to do so, and no one owes it to you either. If a bunch of people want to hear, and others are blocking, then the right to Free Speech is being abrogated. If people want to pay, and others are artificially blocking, then the right to Free Speech is also being abrogated.
- ypzhang2 8y agoHow about this analogy: 3 newspapers dominate the news industry. Their circulation reaches the majority of people in a country. They refuse to publish editorials / letters from a certain point of view. That fits all of the tests that you have outlined above, yet I think most would agree the newspapers have the right to editorialize and selectively publish what they choose.
- stcredzero 8y ago3 newspapers dominate the news industry In that case, these newspapers have a tremendous capability to manipulate the public. Don't have to take that from me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent