I know this is a startup incubator (whatever that is) forum, but I’m tired of this Market Strategy-first framing.[1] Companies like Meta clearly gave away acces

I know this is a startup incubator (whatever that is) forum, but I’m tired of this Market Strategy-first framing.[1] Companies like Meta clearly gave away access to their platform in order to build an effective monopoly in some niche.[2] And companies will do whatever within the Law to increase profits. I’m sure all the CEOs here will agree. Anything less is leaving money on the table. This worship of the Market Strategy was bad enough before when there wasn’t much talk of actual laws defining how much of a “product” they can make their users. But now there are! And this submission is about unlawful practices. And we’re still going to frame this as Meta just being effectively forced by the horrible consumers who refuse to “pay for services”? Ridiculous. And I haven’t even really gotten into how much of a fallacy the specific belief is that if you just “pay for services” then you won’t become a “product”. But thankfully there are a lot of other reasonable posters on this forum about tech company profit-maximization. [1] The Company’s perspective is the prime one. The Company doing shady stuff is merely because the consumer’s are stingy or difficult in some way. If the consumers are inconvenienced by the Company then that is just because the Company had to adopt a market strategy which is not as wholesome as the one they could have used if the consumers were better in some way. [2] And do we have to retread the hopelessness of making a social network where you have to pay to use it when no one else is using it (at the start)? That’s a complete dead-end.