5 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
hierochloe's avatar

It does seem to be a routinely weird trade-off of bellyaching followed by sucking up. Are we doing free markets or not? Unless you want to force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings, no case to be made here (edit: I guess this isn't a religious issue though, so maybe some case). You want the audience, you follow the terms, even if they are incoherent. Especially now that there are functional alternatives.

Expand full comment
Feral Finster's avatar

Monopoly power and network effects are the difference between Twitter and some bakery.

Expand full comment
hierochloe's avatar

I already conceded the bakery wasn't a great comparison and this isn't about Twitter., But even so it hardly changes the point. Twitter and YouTube have competitors that provide nearly exactly the same service, even if their user bases and potential ad revenue are comparably miniscule (for now). The drain for monopoly power is already connected and open, it just needs community promotion and support and a willingness for average users and advertisers to support platforms that allow offensive shit. What else would you like to see done? FCC-style regulations for private internet content platforms to attempt to reduce censorship?

Expand full comment
Feral Finster's avatar

The competitors to Twitter and YT do not enjoy network effects. Same reason people have developed online auctions that offer lower fees and/or better functionality relative to eBay, and these alternatives have gone nowhere.

I would treat natural monopolies as, well, monopolies. Last I checked, the electric company can't cut off my power, even if I went before the Public Service Commission to oppose the latest rate hike.

Expand full comment
hierochloe's avatar

First, thank you for a reasonable reply, I promise i'm not trying to be a snarky prick.

My main point is that network effects never change if users never say 'no more'. The same would seem to apply to voting and definitely to activism (the front line for fighting network effects).

My impression of eBay (which I regularly used 20 years ago) is that, while becoming basically an Amazon Jr, it's lost a significant market share (at least of the things I traded) to sites like Etsy and Reverb and others mainly because it started to suck for normies and artists to sell on. eBay might still be one of the biggest online auction sites, but is it really a monopoly for what it offers?

You're making a tautology about monopolies so I'm not sure what monopoly treatment would be exactly. In the USA, monopolies are largely treated like gifts from God, which I'm sure is not at all what you mean. Seems safe to say you would have YouTube and Twitter regulated similar to utility services, which is a fine proposal to me. What I would like to see though is some inclusion of any solution and/or alternatives along with the crying about the victimization, whether it's framed from a regulatory or a free market point of view. Monopolies/network effects don't go away without this, so we end up stuck in the endless cycle of getting screwed, whining, then simply returning to the place we started.

Expand full comment