4 ms·

> none of the three things you mentioned are anywhere close to monopolies. Yes they are. Imagine that I imported alligators to Washington[0] and set up a gumbo

by a1369209993 5y ago

> none of the three things you mentioned are anywhere close to monopolies. Yes they are. Imagine that I imported alligators to Washington[0] and set up a gumbo resturant in Seattle. I would have a (local) monopoly on alligator meat. The fact that you can easily buy beef or chicken from any number of other places doesn't change this, it just means that my monopoly isn't particularly relevant. Similarly, Facebook has a monopoly on communication with people and groups that communicate exclusively via Facebook. You could go communicate with someone else, just like you could go buy some other kind of meat in the above example, but there is no competitor for communicating with the people you actually (for some reason) want to communicate with. The relevant question is whether Facebook's monopoly is broad enough to be relevant. Reasonable people might disagree about that. But there is no question that they have a monopoly. > their monopoly was so powerful because there was often no other way to get from point A to point B In such a case, the fact that you could instead choose to go to point C by way of some other railroad, does not mean they don't have a monopoly on travel to point B. (Nor does your theoretical ability to walk to point B, or track down a Facebook user in real life and visit their house.) 0: I'm going to assume noone has already done this.

huitzitziltzin 5y ago
No, Facebook is not a monopoly. Your gumbo restaurant example gets at part of the issue: you need to describe the market correctly at a bare minimum. Who are the competitors in the market OR, if there are none, why is the market definition you have offered the correct one? This is why the FTC lost their monopolization case against Facebook this January. Instead of offering a market definition, they made vague, hand-waving statements in their complaint which all revolved around it being "obvious" that FB was a monopoly. The judge was not persuaded. ~Antitrust economist.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > you need to describe the market correctly at a bare minimum The Monopoly is on social networks with the exact same features as Facebook, in literally every way, down to the last detail. Yes, that is a monopoly. The question that actually matters though, is how much substitute goods there are for Facebook. But yes, Facebook absolutely has a Monopoly on the product that is exactly the same as Facebook.

huitzitziltzin 5y ago

No, Facebook is not a monopoly. Your gumbo restaurant example gets at part of the issue: you need to describe the market correctly at a bare minimum. Who are the competitors in the market OR, if there are none, why is the market definition you have offered the correct one? This is why the FTC lost their monopolization case against Facebook this January. Instead of offering a market definition, they made vague, hand-waving statements in their complaint which all revolved around it being "obvious" that FB was a monopoly. The judge was not persuaded. ~Antitrust economist.

stale2002 5y ago
> you need to describe the market correctly at a bare minimum The Monopoly is on social networks with the exact same features as Facebook, in literally every way, down to the last detail. Yes, that is a monopoly. The question that actually matters though, is how much substitute goods there are for Facebook. But yes, Facebook absolutely has a Monopoly on the product that is exactly the same as Facebook.