Again, the argument for overall net value is not based on a single KPI, be it DAU, MAU or unproven/unsourced "utter global dominance". By focusing on 'dominance

Again, the argument for overall net value is not based on a single KPI, be it DAU, MAU or unproven/unsourced "utter global dominance". By focusing on 'dominance', instead of value, you're missing the whole point. You know who also had total communication service dominance (we call that "monopoly" actually) for a good chunk of the 20th century in the US? A little company called AT&T. Look them up and why they were split up. The difference being, at least AT&T was highly profitable at the time. But even if we took your argument as valid, haven't all the MBAs been telling us that unprofitable 'cost centers' should not exist, and should be extinquished, surely you must have heard that argument at some point? So why then are we allowing VC capital to provide a lifeline to some of those utterly unprofitable "businesses" indefinitely? The quotation marks around "businesses" because that's another axiom from business schools - you have a business once you start turning profit. Isn't the point for market to promote the winners and defer the losers? I am afraid the way AirBnB, Uber & co. operate looks a lot like a capitalist version of communist central planning commitees, when we still had independent and free press it used to be called "crony capitalism".