3 ms·

I don't know what definition of free market would exclude the idea that private companies can take actions to protect their property.

tarakat 4y ago
The kind that realizes that government is not the only threat to a functional free market, that does not devolve into feudalism. I am pointing out the failure of lack of antitrust enforcement, not claiming that an unrestricted free market is the ideal, no matter where it leads.
- voidwtf 4y ago
  Agreed about antitrust enforcement, Instagrams marriage to Facebook should have never been allowed to proceed. At some point we let “free market” supersede a market with competition. When you become large enough that you can leverage non-tangible assets to borrow enough money to buy out all your threatening competition. Or when you become large enough that you can secure patents for every little obvious development, original or not, and litigate every potential competitor out of existence. At that point I don’t think it’s a free market. Throw in some lobbying, protectionists policies, and now you have a captured market.
- etchalon 4y ago
  The disagreement seems to be other what "free" means and to whom "free" refers.
Dylan16807 4y ago
"can" and "want" are very different things.
josephcsible 4y ago
The one that says meaningful competition will exist.
- etchalon 4y ago
  I don't see how a service which just regurgitates the content of another service is "competition".
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that today, social networks are an oligopoly and lack meaningful competition. That makes it not a free market, which means the social media companies shouldn't get to do everything that companies in a free market can, and should instead be regulated like other things that aren't free markets, e.g., utilities.
    - etchalon 4y ago
      Social networks are by no means an oligopoly. There are a LOT of social networks out there. There is a lot of competition. There are few, if any, real barriers for an end user to switch to a different social network – beyond convincing their friends to do so.

tarakat 4y ago

The kind that realizes that government is not the only threat to a functional free market, that does not devolve into feudalism. I am pointing out the failure of lack of antitrust enforcement, not claiming that an unrestricted free market is the ideal, no matter where it leads.

voidwtf 4y ago
Agreed about antitrust enforcement, Instagrams marriage to Facebook should have never been allowed to proceed. At some point we let “free market” supersede a market with competition. When you become large enough that you can leverage non-tangible assets to borrow enough money to buy out all your threatening competition. Or when you become large enough that you can secure patents for every little obvious development, original or not, and litigate every potential competitor out of existence. At that point I don’t think it’s a free market. Throw in some lobbying, protectionists policies, and now you have a captured market.
etchalon 4y ago
The disagreement seems to be other what "free" means and to whom "free" refers.

Dylan16807 4y ago

"can" and "want" are very different things.

josephcsible 4y ago

The one that says meaningful competition will exist.

etchalon 4y ago
I don't see how a service which just regurgitates the content of another service is "competition".
- josephcsible 4y ago
  I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that today, social networks are an oligopoly and lack meaningful competition. That makes it not a free market, which means the social media companies shouldn't get to do everything that companies in a free market can, and should instead be regulated like other things that aren't free markets, e.g., utilities.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    Social networks are by no means an oligopoly. There are a LOT of social networks out there. There is a lot of competition. There are few, if any, real barriers for an end user to switch to a different social network – beyond convincing their friends to do so.