5 ms·

Another poor analogy. The differences between oil, coal and wood are the results of differences in their chemical structures which have immense implications reg

Another poor analogy. The differences between oil, coal and wood are the results of differences in their chemical structures which have immense implications regarding their individual utility. By comparison, Facebook is not producing "oil" while others are producing "wood", the communication offerings are practically identical in terms of functionality and utility (send text and images to other people), the only meaningful differences are a function of the individual not the company. If everyone I know uses Discord to communicate then Facebook is as good as "wood" to Discord's "oil".

bryan_w 7y ago
Also we've seen time and again big players being dominated by newcomers in the online communication space. There's no Myspace, or AOL, or Yahoo anymore and those companies would have be thought of as monopolies in their day.
- anoncake 7y ago
  And they were. Today they aren't. What's your point?
anoncake 7y ago
> the communication offerings are practically identical in terms of functionality and utility (send text and images to other people) To different groups of people. That makes them less substitutable than wood and oil. It's possible to create oil from wood, it's possible to build a car that runs on wood, you cannot substitute on human for another. > If everyone I know uses Discord to communicate then Facebook is as good as "wood" to Discord's "oil". That applies to essentially no one. And if you mean that everyone you know is on Discord but not on Facebook: That's an argument for regulating Discord, not against regulating Facebook.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > That applies to essentially no one. So does the scenario where the only viable way to communicate is to use Facebook. Send an e-mail or make a phone call. Facebook is a trivial and unimportant distraction at best and is not the primary form of communication for the vast majority of people.

bryan_w 7y ago

Also we've seen time and again big players being dominated by newcomers in the online communication space. There's no Myspace, or AOL, or Yahoo anymore and those companies would have be thought of as monopolies in their day.

anoncake 7y ago
And they were. Today they aren't. What's your point?

anoncake 7y ago

> the communication offerings are practically identical in terms of functionality and utility (send text and images to other people) To different groups of people. That makes them less substitutable than wood and oil. It's possible to create oil from wood, it's possible to build a car that runs on wood, you cannot substitute on human for another. > If everyone I know uses Discord to communicate then Facebook is as good as "wood" to Discord's "oil". That applies to essentially no one. And if you mean that everyone you know is on Discord but not on Facebook: That's an argument for regulating Discord, not against regulating Facebook.

root_axis 7y ago
> That applies to essentially no one. So does the scenario where the only viable way to communicate is to use Facebook. Send an e-mail or make a phone call. Facebook is a trivial and unimportant distraction at best and is not the primary form of communication for the vast majority of people.