> However, they’ve consolidated themselves as quasi-monopolies I don't understand the recent trend of mentioning a field being a "monopoly" while then discussi

> However, they’ve consolidated themselves as quasi-monopolies I don't understand the recent trend of mentioning a field being a "monopoly" while then discussing Twitter, Facebook, Bluesky, and Mastodon all in that very same article. Social networks definitely benefit from economies of scale as larger platforms enable interaction with more users. But consumers have many, many choices for social networking, including nearly every website and app that adds social networking features. It reminds me of the time a decade or two ago when the government accused three companies of having a monopoly on "super premium ice cream." There are thousands of suppliers of ice cream, and hundreds of suppliers of "premium ice cream", but only three suppliers of "super premium ice cream." Certainly if you artificially define any market small enough you can declare a monopoly. But there are so many sites, apps, and options to interact socially with others online that it seems absurd to imply that anyone has a monopoly on social networking.