Why is it that we can freely swap what a consumer and producer are in this context? To say YC is a monopoly would be suggesting the capital to be a ‘product’ an

Why is it that we can freely swap what a consumer and producer are in this context? To say YC is a monopoly would be suggesting the capital to be a ‘product’ and the startup to be a ‘currency.’ While one could make an argument that they are similar to something more hotly debated as an actual monopoly (e.g. Facebook, Apple) in that they are a consumer of startup ownership (and even then, only partial as opposed to full acquisitions), they do not then use that purchase to potentially restrict _actual_ consumer choice down the line with their primary product. Also, why does the author examine YC’s interactions with its own competitors in a vacuum? Isn’t the litmus test for an abusive monopoly to examine if its decisions and negatively effect its target consumer’s behavior? Of course a company may make decisions which harms its competitors, but does that decision then increase overall cost or reduce the potential choices a consumer can make, or does the decision benefit the consumer (as most business competition should)?