3 ms·
It doesn’t seem moral to do this on revenue. The only thing that should matter to regulators is the active-users metric, as a percentage of the population. Do
by gorgoiler 5y ago
It doesn’t seem moral to do this on revenue. The only thing that should matter to regulators is the active-users metric, as a percentage of the population.
Doing it by money seems like sour grapes. You succeeded in the free market so we’re going to hamper your progress.
- piaste 5y ago"Active users" is a metric that is: (a) somewhat tricky to define with legislative-grade rigour, and much more importantly: (b) only measurable by the very same entities who would be subject to this regulation Were it not for the problem of measurement, I would agree that it would be a better proxy for "needs regulation" than market cap. EDIT: On second thought, I don't even think that's true. Imagine a networking app that absolutely dominates a small but highly profitable and societally / strategically important sector, such as medicine or law. That company could have relatively few users as a % of the population, but still have enough of a warchest to hobble most potential competitors, and to have undue influence in wider society thanks to its control of critical sectors. Going by market cap doesn't measure a company's pervasiveness, but it measures its sheer economic power.