I'm all for calling out bad corporate behavior, but does that behavior really explain Meta's wild profitability? There's no end of people willing to behave at l

I'm all for calling out bad corporate behavior, but does that behavior really explain Meta's wild profitability? There's no end of people willing to behave at least as unethically as Meta for money. In a toy model of capitalism, these people enter the social media industry and drive down Meta's margins by offering better deals to its revenue sources (advertisers in this case). But the toy model doesn't seem to apply to Meta. Why? I think the traditional explanation in terms of network effects remains the best one. It's hard to compete with Meta when all your friends are on their products. Zuckerberg understood this early on and went all-in on growth hacking to be the first to get huge. Probably all successful social media products did the same.