I would actually argue that social media forms natural monopolies. The network effect creates an enormous advantage for incumbents. > It is technically quite

I would actually argue that social media forms natural monopolies. The network effect creates an enormous advantage for incumbents. > It is technically quite trivial to clone the basic functionality of Twitter and run a competing service. This has been done semi-sucessfully with Gab (not endorsing that community, but it is a good example), for example. People choose social media services based on their perceived value, social prestige, etc. It is quite simple to create software that mimics Twitter, sure. It is very, very hard to create a platform like Twitter. That further reinforces it as a natural monopoly to me. You can even look at how the companies rise and fall; typically if the incumbent fails, they do so entirely, and the new competitor eats all of their lunch (i.e. MySpace and Facebook, Digg/Slashdot/Reddit, etc). There are very rarely situations where a new competitor comes and splits the market share; they either take it all, or they get none. > There's no equivalent to "I have to use Twitter because they own the lines to the house/they have the only 5G coverage in my area/they are the only company licensed by my city." There absolutely is. "I have to use Twitter because that's where everyone I want to talk to is, and they don't allow any interoperation with other social networks." It's fundamentally the same thing, and treating them like a utility would involve forcing them to treat their platform like utility poles. They can charge a fee to the other companies that interoperate to recoup their costs and get some profit, but they have to allow the interoperation.