4 ms·

> The analogy with the railroads simply is not apt, their monopoly was so powerful because there was often no other way to get from point A to point B, so they

> The analogy with the railroads simply is not apt, their monopoly was so powerful because there was often no other way to get from point A to point B, so they had complete leverage. I still believe the analogy holds, just substitute geographical points A and B with person A and person B (or business A to potential client B), and the similarities are obviously clear. There is often no other way to get from person A to person B than to use Facebook, or from person C to D without Twitter, ... . Yes, there are various social networks, but there was also various railway barons. Just like the railway was not a single nationwide monopoly, but instead a series of smaller regional monopolies, a single social network is not an all encompassing internet-wide monopoly, but instead a monopoly lording over a subgroup.

sanderjd 5y ago
There is absolutely other ways to get between those people in all those cases. That's exactly why it doesn't hold.
- monetus 5y ago
  Speaking in absolutes, you absolutely could go door to door and hope to find me, but for say, my class in highschool, FB would be their only reasonable way.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  You could also walk between point A and point B, but that doesn't mean that rail monopolies aren't a problem.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    There are other equivalent ways. Using iMessage is not like walking compared to Messenger, it's just parallel railroad tracks.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Dividing your attention between two different messaging apps is more than twice as inconvenient/costly as having just one. If the first company to lay tracks could force later companies to charge double for journeys along their parallel tracks, then that would be a clearly anti-competitive situation. The situation is even worse with messaging apps than with railroads, though, since there is a coordination problem between customers/users of each service, rather than each customer/user being able to make their choice of service in isolation. It's very hard for a messaging service to compete if it requires users to ruin the experience of not just themselves but also at least one of their friends.
      - sanderjd 5y ago
        It is not worse at all. Have you ever seen the movie There Will Be Blood? The local railroad monopolies were used to drive competitors out of other markets, like oil, by cutting off the ability of those market participants to transport their products. Getting multiple messaging notifications from different apps is not anywhere within the same ballpark as this... It's really just so insane that the complaint being ascribed to monopoly power is that it's a tad inconvenient to use the many freely available competitive products. Yeah! That's what a market that isn't monopolized is like! There are lots of competing products, which is often less convenient than if everyone were using a single monopoly product!
        dane-pgp 5y ago
        > Have you ever seen the movie There Will Be Blood? Nope. Have you ever read the article "Facebook is censoring links to competitor social network Tsu and deleting old mentions"?[0] > There are lots of competing products, which is often less convenient than if everyone were using a single monopoly product! If I drive a Ford then it doesn't inconvenience me if someone else drives a Honda. This is equivalent to a market where messengers use an interoperable protocol, like email. The "less convenient" world you are describing is one where some roads can only be driven on by Ford cars, and others only by Hondas, causing people to choose their destinations based on which make of car they have. [0] https://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/facebook-is-censoring-links-to.html https://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/facebook-is-censoring-link...
PoignardAzur 5y ago
> There is often no other way to get from person A to person B than to use Facebook, or from person C to D without Twitter, ... . Yes, there are various social networks, but there was also various railway barons Is that really accurate, though? How many people use a single social network? And regarding market power, very few companies do their online marketing on a single social network; they usually have a general strategy that they deploy on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.
- monetus 5y ago
  Anecdote: facebook is the only social network where I am listed under my actual name. Until some highly adopted internet address book exists, the only option for many old friends to contact me is FB at this point.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  My neighborhood's official presence is only on Facebook, apparently. I don't actively use Facebook, so I have no access to my group of neighbors.

sanderjd 5y ago

There is absolutely other ways to get between those people in all those cases. That's exactly why it doesn't hold.

monetus 5y ago
Speaking in absolutes, you absolutely could go door to door and hope to find me, but for say, my class in highschool, FB would be their only reasonable way.
dane-pgp 5y ago
You could also walk between point A and point B, but that doesn't mean that rail monopolies aren't a problem.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  There are other equivalent ways. Using iMessage is not like walking compared to Messenger, it's just parallel railroad tracks.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Dividing your attention between two different messaging apps is more than twice as inconvenient/costly as having just one. If the first company to lay tracks could force later companies to charge double for journeys along their parallel tracks, then that would be a clearly anti-competitive situation. The situation is even worse with messaging apps than with railroads, though, since there is a coordination problem between customers/users of each service, rather than each customer/user being able to make their choice of service in isolation. It's very hard for a messaging service to compete if it requires users to ruin the experience of not just themselves but also at least one of their friends.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      It is not worse at all. Have you ever seen the movie There Will Be Blood? The local railroad monopolies were used to drive competitors out of other markets, like oil, by cutting off the ability of those market participants to transport their products. Getting multiple messaging notifications from different apps is not anywhere within the same ballpark as this... It's really just so insane that the complaint being ascribed to monopoly power is that it's a tad inconvenient to use the many freely available competitive products. Yeah! That's what a market that isn't monopolized is like! There are lots of competing products, which is often less convenient than if everyone were using a single monopoly product!
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        > Have you ever seen the movie There Will Be Blood? Nope. Have you ever read the article "Facebook is censoring links to competitor social network Tsu and deleting old mentions"?[0] > There are lots of competing products, which is often less convenient than if everyone were using a single monopoly product! If I drive a Ford then it doesn't inconvenience me if someone else drives a Honda. This is equivalent to a market where messengers use an interoperable protocol, like email. The "less convenient" world you are describing is one where some roads can only be driven on by Ford cars, and others only by Hondas, causing people to choose their destinations based on which make of car they have. [0] https://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/facebook-is-censoring-links-to.html https://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/facebook-is-censoring-link...

PoignardAzur 5y ago

> There is often no other way to get from person A to person B than to use Facebook, or from person C to D without Twitter, ... . Yes, there are various social networks, but there was also various railway barons Is that really accurate, though? How many people use a single social network? And regarding market power, very few companies do their online marketing on a single social network; they usually have a general strategy that they deploy on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.

monetus 5y ago
Anecdote: facebook is the only social network where I am listed under my actual name. Until some highly adopted internet address book exists, the only option for many old friends to contact me is FB at this point.
nitrogen 5y ago
My neighborhood's official presence is only on Facebook, apparently. I don't actively use Facebook, so I have no access to my group of neighbors.