4 ms·

> Then there would be calls to break that one up... Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Many markets naturally tend towards monopolies - that is no reas

• beaner 7y ago
  What is really being asked to be broken up isn't a monopoly, but the way people interact with each other and organize themselves, which so far has manifested as large corporations because it has been the most efficient expression of our own built-in networking. What I hear when you say "smaller platforms can't influence elections like facebook" is "citizens vote differently when they are disconnected from their peers - in a way that I like".
  • eli_gottlieb 7y ago
    >the way people interact with each other and organize themselves, which so far has manifested as large corporations because it has been the most efficient expression of our own built-in networking. [citation needed]
  • deogeo 7y ago
    > isn't a monopoly, but the way people interact with each other But it's more than just the way people interact - it's also a company controlling it. E.g. no-one is calling for breaking up IRC or XMPP - because you couldn't. I'm just not comfortable giving a handful of companies so much soft power over national/global discussion.
    • beaner 7y ago
      I think the point is that even if such a service were completely decentralized, there would be the same calls to action against it. The point being made in the article is not so much about the companies themselves, it's about how people communicate with each other on such platforms (even if the author intended otherwise).