4 ms·

You seem to talk about monopolies as if it was a bad thing. And I get it that you don't like Twitter being a closed platform. Me neither. It's not ideal, but i

You seem to talk about monopolies as if it was a bad thing. And I get it that you don't like Twitter being a closed platform. Me neither. It's not ideal, but it's still more user friendly than Mastodon (sadly). I wouldn't shed a tear if Twitter went bankrupt either, but I don't necessarily think it would lead to a better world (Facebook would be a stronger monopoly and that, I think, would make things worse).

metalliqaz 6y ago
> You seem to talk about monopolies as if it was a bad thing. guilty as charged
- juliend2 6y ago
  What's with this dogmatic rhetoric, lol? Monopolies are just companies that enjoy a significant edge over their competitors. What makes monopolistic companies inherently always bad?
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    No, that is not the definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is a entity that holds exclusivity to a good or a service.
    - juliend2 6y ago
      Interesting. So according to this definition, Google doesn't have a monopoly in the market of Search engines since there is also Bing[1]. What is the word for it then? Highly-dominant player? Edit: looks like I'm not alone to have this definition for a monopoly[2]. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23900128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23900128
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        De facto monopoly is not a monopoly. It is a dominant player. But a monopoly really is exclusive.
        mc32 6y ago
        ? If by all measures, except the law, it’s a monopoly then isn’t it a monopoly, just not de jure?
        juliend2 6y ago
        Thanks for the clarification, jacquesm. I looked at Merriam-Webster[1] and it basically says what you said: it must be exclusive. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
      - ac29 6y ago
        Google could be described as being a member of a search engine oligopoly.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

metalliqaz 6y ago

> You seem to talk about monopolies as if it was a bad thing. guilty as charged

juliend2 6y ago
What's with this dogmatic rhetoric, lol? Monopolies are just companies that enjoy a significant edge over their competitors. What makes monopolistic companies inherently always bad?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  No, that is not the definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is a entity that holds exclusivity to a good or a service.
  - juliend2 6y ago
    Interesting. So according to this definition, Google doesn't have a monopoly in the market of Search engines since there is also Bing[1]. What is the word for it then? Highly-dominant player? Edit: looks like I'm not alone to have this definition for a monopoly[2]. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23900128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23900128
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      De facto monopoly is not a monopoly. It is a dominant player. But a monopoly really is exclusive.
      - mc32 6y ago
        ? If by all measures, except the law, it’s a monopoly then isn’t it a monopoly, just not de jure?
      - juliend2 6y ago
        Thanks for the clarification, jacquesm. I looked at Merriam-Webster[1] and it basically says what you said: it must be exclusive. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
    - ac29 6y ago
      Google could be described as being a member of a search engine oligopoly.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]