4 ms·

Monopoly on what? There are not thousands of bakeries in any city. Many towns might have none, or one. In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly

by pb7 4y ago

Monopoly on what? There are not thousands of bakeries in any city. Many towns might have none, or one. In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there.

Jensson 4y ago
The baker is a person with rights as well, you can't force him to make a special order cake for something he disagrees with. You can force him to sell standard cakes, and they offered to sell standard cakes in the case, but the customers wanted to force him to make a designed cake, that would be against the bakers individual rights. Large corporations lacks those individual rights for obvious reasons, so large corporations should be forced to provide services to everyone even though individuals shouldn't always be.
Banana699 4y ago
>Monopoly on what? On users. Any network is worth a function of the number of nodes in it (typically a quadratic). Social Media are networks that link humans, and there is a finite number of humans (or, more accurately, internet-connected humans with time to spare) that grows very slowly and inevitably will stagnate. That means a social network is in direct zero-sum competition with all the other networks, and a giant like twitter hurts everybody else by concentrating a signficant proportion of users into a single (aweful) place, destroying competition by the lock-in effects of network dynamics. >There are not thousands of bakeries in any city There are in my city, actually. Dialing the number down to the hundreds or the high tens doesn't signficantly change the validity and implications of the argument either. > In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there. If you can actually prove that in a court, and if you furthermore prove that the complaining party will incur significant costs to themselves if they try to seek another bakery elsewhere (by a resonable legal definition of 'significant'), then you have my full blessing to force people to bake your cake. Until then, comparing an easily-replacable food product with tons of suppliers and publicly-available recipes to a proprietary service supplied by a corporation with thousands of servers, thousands of employees and tens of millions of users is ideologically motivated bullshit.

by pb7 4y ago

Monopoly on what? There are not thousands of bakeries in any city. Many towns might have none, or one. In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there.

Jensson 4y ago

The baker is a person with rights as well, you can't force him to make a special order cake for something he disagrees with. You can force him to sell standard cakes, and they offered to sell standard cakes in the case, but the customers wanted to force him to make a designed cake, that would be against the bakers individual rights. Large corporations lacks those individual rights for obvious reasons, so large corporations should be forced to provide services to everyone even though individuals shouldn't always be.

Banana699 4y ago

>Monopoly on what? On users. Any network is worth a function of the number of nodes in it (typically a quadratic). Social Media are networks that link humans, and there is a finite number of humans (or, more accurately, internet-connected humans with time to spare) that grows very slowly and inevitably will stagnate. That means a social network is in direct zero-sum competition with all the other networks, and a giant like twitter hurts everybody else by concentrating a signficant proportion of users into a single (aweful) place, destroying competition by the lock-in effects of network dynamics. >There are not thousands of bakeries in any city There are in my city, actually. Dialing the number down to the hundreds or the high tens doesn't signficantly change the validity and implications of the argument either. > In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there. If you can actually prove that in a court, and if you furthermore prove that the complaining party will incur significant costs to themselves if they try to seek another bakery elsewhere (by a resonable legal definition of 'significant'), then you have my full blessing to force people to bake your cake. Until then, comparing an easily-replacable food product with tons of suppliers and publicly-available recipes to a proprietary service supplied by a corporation with thousands of servers, thousands of employees and tens of millions of users is ideologically motivated bullshit.