8 ms·

In what world is Twitter a monopoly? Its market cap is $36B. That's 2X less than Snap and 20X less than Facebook.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
It's crazy isn't it? This community thinks Apple and Google are monopolies despite being competitors, ditto Twitter and Facebook. Microsoft isn't though. Not because they don't completely own the Desktop PC market just as they ever did, but because that market is less relevant than it used to be for web devs. I live in a strange time.
- missosoup 6y ago
  They are monopolies within a set of respective markets/niches when it comes to speech platforms. GP's point was that private individuals have the power to arbitrarily deplatform speech they don't like, no court order required. The counter argument is 'go find another speech platform', but it doesn't work, because speech platforms have been monopolised by a single-digit handful of individuals.
  - maximente 6y ago
    i think there may be some conflating of "very powerful" (?) with monopoly here. it does not take much effort to realize that twitter is not a monopoly in the space of speech platforms. it's not clear to me that twitter is particularly unique as a speech platform: blogs minimally could serve this role, as could mastodon. more controversially perhaps: facebook/instagram. contrast that with a situation where you literally /cannot/ get utilities delivered to your house because the utility company doesn't like you: seems like a fairly stark difference to me.
    - missosoup 6y ago
      This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'. Twitter is one of a small handful of platforms where an individual can share an idea and have that idea spread - as long as the owners of Twitter don't disagree with that idea. It's not because twitter is special, it's because it was one of the first to achieve a sufficiently large userbase. Defending arbitrary censorship on these platforms as 'oh well it's a private entity so they can do what they like' misses the forest for the trees. Technology has shifted the power balance for free expression, and applying pre-technology laws and mindsets to it just empowers that small handful of individuals to manipulate public discourse even more. Twitter doesn't quite have a monopoly on speech, but it's damn close in terms of practical outcomes. The fact that the legal definition of `monopoly` hasn't caught up with that, doesn't change the matter.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'. No, it's saying you're welcome to practice free speech, you just can't borrow my megaphone to do it. How hard is this to understand? You are not entitled to use other people's property without their consent. If twitter was actually the only way to communicate with people on the internet you might have a case, but that is completely, ridiculously, absurdly not true.
        missosoup 6y ago
        Twitter+FB+ a single-digit handful of other platforms are the only mechanisms for a private individual to share an idea and have it spread to a wide audience. Yes, you can make your own blog and post whatever you like on it (actually these days even that is questionable with cloud vendors deplatforming blogs they don't like), but the chances of your speech reaching a wide audience are millions of times smaller than if you just posted on one of those established platforms and your speech was allowed to spread without censorship. The problem with your analogy is that your megaphone makes it virtually impossible for anyone else to have one. This was not the case in the early days of the internet prior to these hyper centralised platforms emerging. This is where both the law and just general public mindset hasn't yet caught up with the implications of modern social media. In business, we have anti-trust laws specifically for this scenario. In information and social media, we have nothing. A cafe owner refusing service to an individual is not comparable to a global-scale speech platform selectively suppressing ideas that the owner doesn't like from reaching a wide audience.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > Twitter+FB+ a single-digit handful of other platforms are the only mechanisms for a private individual to share an idea and have it spread to a wide audience. Bullshit. They're merely the easiest. People were sharing ideas far and wide long before these companies came into existence. You have a right to free speech, no one is required to help you spread it. > A cafe owner refusing service to an individual is not comparable to a global-scale speech platform selectively suppressing ideas that the owner doesn't like from reaching a wide audience. Maybe not, but I've yet to see a good argument for why being a global scale speech platform inherently means that anyone has a right to tell Twitter who they can and cannot ban. Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for Twitter, I'm just saying that those consequences should be social, not legal. I feel like the people here are arguing that the reason they should face legal consequences isn't that they've done anything illegal or that necessarily should be illegal, only that they don't think social consequences will work and they can't stand the idea that other people might not care as much about it as they do.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  You live in a town with no fresh water, and the only drinks available are sold by the local store. This store does not sell bottled water, wine, orange juice, milk, or tea. The only drinks it sells are Coca-Cola and Pepsi. But if you don't like Coca-Cola, just buy Pepsi - how silly it would be to complain of monopoly when you still have a choice!
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Who is Twitter in your analogy? The store? Then your analogy is flawed because there are other big stores that sell basically the same stuff and even some small shops. Not a monopoly. If all of them choose not to sell that product that doesn't mean anything. They don't have any obligation to carry whatever you want. Man, people are being absurd about this whole thing.
    - MikeUt 6y ago
      The analogy is flawed. Saying there are no monopoly issues as long as there are at least two competitors is even more flawed. If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms). How successful will such movies be? Should we be concerned that the cinema chains can decide what sort of movies can be made or have any sort of impact?
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > The analogy is flawed. Saying there are no monopoly issues as long as there are at least two competitors is even more flawed. There are significantly more than two companies that allow mass communication over the internet. In fact, there are a significant number of perfectly free and open ways to communicate over the internet. Why is Twitter special? > If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms). How successful will such movies be? Sorta my point, because that happens all the time. No one goes around saying theater chains are monopolies and need to show every movie anyone deigns to have projected on a screen. > Should we be concerned that the cinema chains can decide what sort of movies can be made or have any sort of impact? Maybe, but that isn't legal standing for doing anything. If you don't like it, boycott theaters, tell your friends not to go to them, promote alternatives that deliver what you want. Oh, but then the market might disagree with you and keep going to the theaters anyway. Well tough. You're not entitled to force people to care. Alternatively, push for legislation around online communication platforms and how they are allowed to determine who can and cannot speak on them. But then don't be surprised when those rules apply to your mailing list too.
offby37years 6y ago
It is a communication monopoly.
- undersuit 6y ago
  It's a monopoly on social graphs. I don't want to rediscover and invite my friends everytime I start a new account on another service.
- jfrankamp 6y ago
  I can access whitehouse.gov (or sci hub). The former is there explicitly to communicate the to the public the ideas and words of the occupant of the White House. Why do people keep saying monopoly when there are clear alternatives that aren't moderated through a private site/service?

It's crazy isn't it? This community thinks Apple and Google are monopolies despite being competitors, ditto Twitter and Facebook. Microsoft isn't though. Not because they don't completely own the Desktop PC market just as they ever did, but because that market is less relevant than it used to be for web devs. I live in a strange time.

missosoup 6y ago
They are monopolies within a set of respective markets/niches when it comes to speech platforms. GP's point was that private individuals have the power to arbitrarily deplatform speech they don't like, no court order required. The counter argument is 'go find another speech platform', but it doesn't work, because speech platforms have been monopolised by a single-digit handful of individuals.
- maximente 6y ago
  i think there may be some conflating of "very powerful" (?) with monopoly here. it does not take much effort to realize that twitter is not a monopoly in the space of speech platforms. it's not clear to me that twitter is particularly unique as a speech platform: blogs minimally could serve this role, as could mastodon. more controversially perhaps: facebook/instagram. contrast that with a situation where you literally /cannot/ get utilities delivered to your house because the utility company doesn't like you: seems like a fairly stark difference to me.
  - missosoup 6y ago
    This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'. Twitter is one of a small handful of platforms where an individual can share an idea and have that idea spread - as long as the owners of Twitter don't disagree with that idea. It's not because twitter is special, it's because it was one of the first to achieve a sufficiently large userbase. Defending arbitrary censorship on these platforms as 'oh well it's a private entity so they can do what they like' misses the forest for the trees. Technology has shifted the power balance for free expression, and applying pre-technology laws and mindsets to it just empowers that small handful of individuals to manipulate public discourse even more. Twitter doesn't quite have a monopoly on speech, but it's damn close in terms of practical outcomes. The fact that the legal definition of `monopoly` hasn't caught up with that, doesn't change the matter.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > This is a logical fallacy and the equivalent of saying 'you are welcome to practice free speech, in this here sound-proofed room'. No, it's saying you're welcome to practice free speech, you just can't borrow my megaphone to do it. How hard is this to understand? You are not entitled to use other people's property without their consent. If twitter was actually the only way to communicate with people on the internet you might have a case, but that is completely, ridiculously, absurdly not true.
      - missosoup 6y ago
        Twitter+FB+ a single-digit handful of other platforms are the only mechanisms for a private individual to share an idea and have it spread to a wide audience. Yes, you can make your own blog and post whatever you like on it (actually these days even that is questionable with cloud vendors deplatforming blogs they don't like), but the chances of your speech reaching a wide audience are millions of times smaller than if you just posted on one of those established platforms and your speech was allowed to spread without censorship. The problem with your analogy is that your megaphone makes it virtually impossible for anyone else to have one. This was not the case in the early days of the internet prior to these hyper centralised platforms emerging. This is where both the law and just general public mindset hasn't yet caught up with the implications of modern social media. In business, we have anti-trust laws specifically for this scenario. In information and social media, we have nothing. A cafe owner refusing service to an individual is not comparable to a global-scale speech platform selectively suppressing ideas that the owner doesn't like from reaching a wide audience.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > Twitter+FB+ a single-digit handful of other platforms are the only mechanisms for a private individual to share an idea and have it spread to a wide audience. Bullshit. They're merely the easiest. People were sharing ideas far and wide long before these companies came into existence. You have a right to free speech, no one is required to help you spread it. > A cafe owner refusing service to an individual is not comparable to a global-scale speech platform selectively suppressing ideas that the owner doesn't like from reaching a wide audience. Maybe not, but I've yet to see a good argument for why being a global scale speech platform inherently means that anyone has a right to tell Twitter who they can and cannot ban. Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for Twitter, I'm just saying that those consequences should be social, not legal. I feel like the people here are arguing that the reason they should face legal consequences isn't that they've done anything illegal or that necessarily should be illegal, only that they don't think social consequences will work and they can't stand the idea that other people might not care as much about it as they do.
MikeUt 6y ago
You live in a town with no fresh water, and the only drinks available are sold by the local store. This store does not sell bottled water, wine, orange juice, milk, or tea. The only drinks it sells are Coca-Cola and Pepsi. But if you don't like Coca-Cola, just buy Pepsi - how silly it would be to complain of monopoly when you still have a choice!
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Who is Twitter in your analogy? The store? Then your analogy is flawed because there are other big stores that sell basically the same stuff and even some small shops. Not a monopoly. If all of them choose not to sell that product that doesn't mean anything. They don't have any obligation to carry whatever you want. Man, people are being absurd about this whole thing.
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    The analogy is flawed. Saying there are no monopoly issues as long as there are at least two competitors is even more flawed. If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms). How successful will such movies be? Should we be concerned that the cinema chains can decide what sort of movies can be made or have any sort of impact?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > The analogy is flawed. Saying there are no monopoly issues as long as there are at least two competitors is even more flawed. There are significantly more than two companies that allow mass communication over the internet. In fact, there are a significant number of perfectly free and open ways to communicate over the internet. Why is Twitter special? > If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms). How successful will such movies be? Sorta my point, because that happens all the time. No one goes around saying theater chains are monopolies and need to show every movie anyone deigns to have projected on a screen. > Should we be concerned that the cinema chains can decide what sort of movies can be made or have any sort of impact? Maybe, but that isn't legal standing for doing anything. If you don't like it, boycott theaters, tell your friends not to go to them, promote alternatives that deliver what you want. Oh, but then the market might disagree with you and keep going to the theaters anyway. Well tough. You're not entitled to force people to care. Alternatively, push for legislation around online communication platforms and how they are allowed to determine who can and cannot speak on them. But then don't be surprised when those rules apply to your mailing list too.

offby37years 6y ago

It is a communication monopoly.

undersuit 6y ago
It's a monopoly on social graphs. I don't want to rediscover and invite my friends everytime I start a new account on another service.
jfrankamp 6y ago
I can access whitehouse.gov (or sci hub). The former is there explicitly to communicate the to the public the ideas and words of the occupant of the White House. Why do people keep saying monopoly when there are clear alternatives that aren't moderated through a private site/service?