4 ms·

>Monopolies are bad. Not entirely... there's a tradeoff. People forget that monopolies can be a good thing in that it can force a standard. For example, if Eng

by Rury 5y ago

>Monopolies are bad. Not entirely... there's a tradeoff. People forget that monopolies can be a good thing in that it can force a standard. For example, if English were said to have a monopoly on language, it would become very easy to speak and communicate around the world, as it would be the only language spoken everywhere. Contrast, if we have 200 versions of spoken languages, we'd have communication barriers to overcome when we try to communicate with someone foreign.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> For example, if English were said to have a monopoly on language, it would become very easy to speak and communicate around the world, as it would be the only language spoken everywhere. Contrast, if we have 200 versions of spoken languages, we'd have communication barriers to overcome when we try to communicate with someone foreign. You don't need a monopoly to do this because people can be bilingual. English is the de facto language of international websites on the internet, so people in Spain who speak Spanish and English and people in Russia who speak Russian and English go to Twitter or Reddit and talk to each other in English. The same is true of internet standards. Everybody uses TCP/IP. Everybody. But nobody has a monopoly on it and nobody is prohibiting anyone from using a competitor out of anything other than network effect. If IPv8 turns out to be super amazing and has many advantages that overcome the inertia of IPv4, everyone could switch. Which is the thing you don't get with a corporate monopoly.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Rury 5y ago
  >You don't need a monopoly to do this because people can be bilingual True, but it takes more work/effort to learn two languages than one. Whereas if we had one language (as in a monopoly), it'd be even simpler/easier. >The same is true of internet standards. Everybody uses TCP/IP. Yes, if protocols were businesses, they then could be thought of as having a monopoly on their domains.
  - jdbernard 5y ago
    There are not enough similarities between protocols and businesses for that analogy to work or have any explanatory value.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Rury 5y ago
      Except that there is: >a dominant protocol of a certain domain where there's no other widely used alternative: TCP/IP >a dominant business of a certain industry where there's no other widely used alternative: monopoly I think you might be missing the point I'm making. If you carefully re-read what I wrote, I never said monopolies came without bad properties or were immune to being bad. I also never said protocols were in fact the same things as businesses. I merely pointed out a good tradeoff people aren't acknowledging: Monopolies can provide a common, standard of something which can make certain things easier (just like TCP/IP does). And that's not the same as saying: "TCP/IP comes without problems..."; "monopolies come without problems..."; "TCP/IP is a monopoly..."

by Rury 5y ago

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> For example, if English were said to have a monopoly on language, it would become very easy to speak and communicate around the world, as it would be the only language spoken everywhere. Contrast, if we have 200 versions of spoken languages, we'd have communication barriers to overcome when we try to communicate with someone foreign. You don't need a monopoly to do this because people can be bilingual. English is the de facto language of international websites on the internet, so people in Spain who speak Spanish and English and people in Russia who speak Russian and English go to Twitter or Reddit and talk to each other in English. The same is true of internet standards. Everybody uses TCP/IP. Everybody. But nobody has a monopoly on it and nobody is prohibiting anyone from using a competitor out of anything other than network effect. If IPv8 turns out to be super amazing and has many advantages that overcome the inertia of IPv4, everyone could switch. Which is the thing you don't get with a corporate monopoly.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Rury 5y ago
>You don't need a monopoly to do this because people can be bilingual True, but it takes more work/effort to learn two languages than one. Whereas if we had one language (as in a monopoly), it'd be even simpler/easier. >The same is true of internet standards. Everybody uses TCP/IP. Yes, if protocols were businesses, they then could be thought of as having a monopoly on their domains.
- jdbernard 5y ago
  There are not enough similarities between protocols and businesses for that analogy to work or have any explanatory value.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rury 5y ago
    Except that there is: >a dominant protocol of a certain domain where there's no other widely used alternative: TCP/IP >a dominant business of a certain industry where there's no other widely used alternative: monopoly I think you might be missing the point I'm making. If you carefully re-read what I wrote, I never said monopolies came without bad properties or were immune to being bad. I also never said protocols were in fact the same things as businesses. I merely pointed out a good tradeoff people aren't acknowledging: Monopolies can provide a common, standard of something which can make certain things easier (just like TCP/IP does). And that's not the same as saying: "TCP/IP comes without problems..."; "monopolies come without problems..."; "TCP/IP is a monopoly..."