3 ms·

What loophole? “Twitter took the first step, so now it’s safe for us to” isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new th

What loophole? “Twitter took the first step, so now it’s safe for us to” isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”. If you want to talk about the insane power these platforms have, that’s one thing, but to claim that they’re “conspiring” (I’m assuming you mean to deplatform conservative views) isn’t arguing in good faith.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The only difference between conspiring and conscious parallelism is saying that you're doing it out loud. Let's use the classic example -- raising prices. Suppose you have a market with two companies. If they get together in a room and conspire to fix prices, that's illegal. So here's what they do instead. First, one of them raises prices. They know that isn't going to end well for them unless the other one does it, because otherwise they'll lose business to the other one which now has a lower price. If the other one doesn't promptly respond by raising prices too, they'll have to lower them again. So that action is really an invitation to coordinate in raising prices. Because they both know that. It's obvious that the one can't profitably raise prices unless the other one does. So now the other company has a choice. Option one, leave prices where they are, causing their competitor to have to lower them again before their own company actually gains any significant market share as a result of the lower prices. Option two, raise prices to match, and now they both make more money. Option two is better for both companies. They both make more money and the only risk is that the higher margins attract a third competitor who comes in to undercut them. If that isn't likely or can be made unlikely through some exclusionary mechanism then they both get to raise prices to the monopoly price. It's exactly the same thing as the price fixing conspiracy except that they never said it out loud. It's a loophole. And it's also the difference here: > isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”. The users are too diffuse for the coordination mechanism to operate, and without it they don't have market power. At the point when each site has a proportionate share of the users, no individual user has any reason to use a given site other than because they like it better, and their individual choice doesn't affect the collective outcome enough to justify making it strategically. Basically, it only applies to concentrated markets.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

The only difference between conspiring and conscious parallelism is saying that you're doing it out loud. Let's use the classic example -- raising prices. Suppose you have a market with two companies. If they get together in a room and conspire to fix prices, that's illegal. So here's what they do instead. First, one of them raises prices. They know that isn't going to end well for them unless the other one does it, because otherwise they'll lose business to the other one which now has a lower price. If the other one doesn't promptly respond by raising prices too, they'll have to lower them again. So that action is really an invitation to coordinate in raising prices. Because they both know that. It's obvious that the one can't profitably raise prices unless the other one does. So now the other company has a choice. Option one, leave prices where they are, causing their competitor to have to lower them again before their own company actually gains any significant market share as a result of the lower prices. Option two, raise prices to match, and now they both make more money. Option two is better for both companies. They both make more money and the only risk is that the higher margins attract a third competitor who comes in to undercut them. If that isn't likely or can be made unlikely through some exclusionary mechanism then they both get to raise prices to the monopoly price. It's exactly the same thing as the price fixing conspiracy except that they never said it out loud. It's a loophole. And it's also the difference here: > isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”. The users are too diffuse for the coordination mechanism to operate, and without it they don't have market power. At the point when each site has a proportionate share of the users, no individual user has any reason to use a given site other than because they like it better, and their individual choice doesn't affect the collective outcome enough to justify making it strategically. Basically, it only applies to concentrated markets.