4 ms·
This is a definition that is broad to the point of uselessness. Regardless of what program I use to communicate with my friends, that program is now a monopoly
by dahfizz 5y ago
This is a definition that is broad to the point of uselessness.
Regardless of what program I use to communicate with my friends, that program is now a monopoly. Even if I coded up the website myself and my friends and I are the only ones to use it, that website now "owns access" to all my friends. It is absurd to label this website a monopoly.
This is also not actionable. Once my friends and I all decide on a communication platform, that platform is a monopoly and must be broken up (?), by removing some of my friends from the platform (?). In that way, it would literally be impossible for me to have a platform where I can communicate with all my friends, because such a platform would be a monopoly and must be broken up by your definition.
- throwaway894345 5y ago1. No one cares about monopolies on tiny markets. 2. It's perfectly actionable: open protocols separate the platform and the network.