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, …
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.
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.
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.
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.