5 ms·

Try not to create monopoly this large and wait for market to sort this out. There should be like 7 amazons, 7 Facebook and such.

dalbasal 6y ago
A part of the reason for the existence of these monopolies is that 1/7th of a facebook (in terms of usage) is worth much less than 1/7th of a facebook in terms of revenue and even less in terms of profit and market cap. Breadth is very valuable to and ad business. Targeting makes it moreso.
- grumple 6y ago
  1/7 of Facebook would cover the US or EU and would be very valuable.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    That's not really 1/7 of facebook, but rather 100% of facebook in the US or Europe. 1/7 of facebook is 1/7 of facebook in the US and/or 1/7 of facebook in Europe. If you had 100% of facebook's business in Des Moines, IA, you would be raking in the cash. Good luck getting it.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    Sure, those are the most valuable pieces. But all together: 7X(1/7) < 1. This is the split (most valuable markets kept whole) that would be least detrimental to value, but also least beneficial in monopoly busting terms.
    - 3np 6y ago
      I'd argue that 7X(1/7) > 1. Many (most?) users will be participating in more than one of these concurrently.
- willis936 6y ago
  Nothing wrong with the dismantling the ad industry for the good of society.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    How will people know what to buy?
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I don't know, if I'm running a business at 1/7th the size of Facebook I will still be trying to grow it as much as possible and triumph over my competitors, even if that means I end up running a monopoly. Probably a failing of my personality there.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  There are like 15 stock exchanges in the US alone. For a long time there was a single network monopoly: NYSE. The reason there are now 15 exchanges and not 1 is because the SEC structures the market to incentivize "on the merits" competition and discourage "destroy mode" competition. In sports we don't tolerate players intentionally injuring the other side, so I'm not sure why we tolerate it in business.
  - paranoidrobot 6y ago
    Even playing by the rules and not sabotaging/destroying the competition can be harmful to consumers. Mergers and Acquisitions have been responsible for the loss of countless services & products. Services & Products that were even profitable, and had a loyal and growing customer base, and a long road ahead of them.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    This is both the example and counterexample of regulatory trustbusting. You decrease monopoly problems in one sense, but now the "SEC" and it's quasi-subsidiary entities (NASDAQ, NYSE) have become their own sort of trust. You can even include LSX and other major worldwide markets. International trade deals have brought regulatory regimes close to each other in order to maintain liquidity between markets. If you did this to the car industry, it would probably make cars worse. It's not obvious what a "worse car" means in the context of a stock exchange or ad marketplace, and dubious that "worse" means worse for us, so a regulator is not out of the question. That said, I'd rather have fewer or no multi-trillion dollar trusts than a regulated trust. Anyway, a social media regulator is problematic for other reasons. IMO the EU & US should just find some courage and act on the findings of their own courts. The marketplaces in particular have already been found (in court) to be operating monopolistically. Split them off. Make adwords separate from Google. Amazon marketplace is trickier, because it is a "real stuff" business... but the same logic applies.
amelius 6y ago
Yes, perhaps it should be a law.
wdn 6y ago
The FAANG took a lesson from DOJ vs Microsoft, they no longer compete, they just bought all their competitors.
aikinai 6y ago
Is everyone supposed to join all seven of those Facebooks?
valuearb 6y ago
Network effects says no.

dalbasal 6y ago

A part of the reason for the existence of these monopolies is that 1/7th of a facebook (in terms of usage) is worth much less than 1/7th of a facebook in terms of revenue and even less in terms of profit and market cap. Breadth is very valuable to and ad business. Targeting makes it moreso.

grumple 6y ago
1/7 of Facebook would cover the US or EU and would be very valuable.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  That's not really 1/7 of facebook, but rather 100% of facebook in the US or Europe. 1/7 of facebook is 1/7 of facebook in the US and/or 1/7 of facebook in Europe. If you had 100% of facebook's business in Des Moines, IA, you would be raking in the cash. Good luck getting it.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Sure, those are the most valuable pieces. But all together: 7X(1/7) < 1. This is the split (most valuable markets kept whole) that would be least detrimental to value, but also least beneficial in monopoly busting terms.
  - 3np 6y ago
    I'd argue that 7X(1/7) > 1. Many (most?) users will be participating in more than one of these concurrently.
willis936 6y ago
Nothing wrong with the dismantling the ad industry for the good of society.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  How will people know what to buy?

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I don't know, if I'm running a business at 1/7th the size of Facebook I will still be trying to grow it as much as possible and triumph over my competitors, even if that means I end up running a monopoly. Probably a failing of my personality there.

rmrfstar 6y ago
There are like 15 stock exchanges in the US alone. For a long time there was a single network monopoly: NYSE. The reason there are now 15 exchanges and not 1 is because the SEC structures the market to incentivize "on the merits" competition and discourage "destroy mode" competition. In sports we don't tolerate players intentionally injuring the other side, so I'm not sure why we tolerate it in business.
- paranoidrobot 6y ago
  Even playing by the rules and not sabotaging/destroying the competition can be harmful to consumers. Mergers and Acquisitions have been responsible for the loss of countless services & products. Services & Products that were even profitable, and had a loyal and growing customer base, and a long road ahead of them.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  This is both the example and counterexample of regulatory trustbusting. You decrease monopoly problems in one sense, but now the "SEC" and it's quasi-subsidiary entities (NASDAQ, NYSE) have become their own sort of trust. You can even include LSX and other major worldwide markets. International trade deals have brought regulatory regimes close to each other in order to maintain liquidity between markets. If you did this to the car industry, it would probably make cars worse. It's not obvious what a "worse car" means in the context of a stock exchange or ad marketplace, and dubious that "worse" means worse for us, so a regulator is not out of the question. That said, I'd rather have fewer or no multi-trillion dollar trusts than a regulated trust. Anyway, a social media regulator is problematic for other reasons. IMO the EU & US should just find some courage and act on the findings of their own courts. The marketplaces in particular have already been found (in court) to be operating monopolistically. Split them off. Make adwords separate from Google. Amazon marketplace is trickier, because it is a "real stuff" business... but the same logic applies.

amelius 6y ago

Yes, perhaps it should be a law.

wdn 6y ago

The FAANG took a lesson from DOJ vs Microsoft, they no longer compete, they just bought all their competitors.

aikinai 6y ago

Is everyone supposed to join all seven of those Facebooks?

valuearb 6y ago

Network effects says no.