Economics: What a monopoly isn't.

[Speaker to Animals]

There was no social network monopoly when that happened.

The nature of what a social network actually is dictates that there is only going to be one social network in the end, which is a monopoly. The way around that is for social networks to be designed for interoperability. Good luck convincing Facebook to allow competition like that.

Wow! Sounds a lot like Highlander. "There can be only one!" Lol...

If that is true, it won't be Facebook. People are leaving FB in droves, in favor of other social media sites. Nerd and his kids all left FB about two years ago. I only stay because my account is linked to a couple of my silly games. I rarely post; haven't accepted a new friend request in over a year. It's no longer interesting. It's just ads and click bait, and every once in a while, a friend posts pictures of food.

It's a snooze fest.

If FB fucks up, another social network company will acquire the existing social network and you will be right back in monopoly land. The network effect ensures it.

[Kath]

If FB fucks up, another social network company will acquire the existing social network and you will be right back in monopoly land. The network effect ensures it.

If FB was a real monopoly, there'd be no competition. Since there is obviously plenty of competition, it's not a monopoly. There are numerous social sites with hundreds of millions of users. Don't forget that FB counts all users as unique users, but there are plenty of people I know who have two or three accounts; one for business contacts, one for just family, one for just friends... that's one user, but FB reports three.

[Speaker to Animals]

If FB fucks up, another social network company will acquire the existing social network and you will be right back in monopoly land. The network effect ensures it.

If FB was a real monopoly, there'd be no competition. Since there is obviously plenty of competition, it's not a monopoly. There are numerous social sites with hundreds of millions of users. Don't forget that FB counts all users as unique users, but there are plenty of people I know who have two or three accounts; one for business contacts, one for just family, one for just friends... that's one user, but FB reports three.

That's not what a monopoly actually means, Kath. It's impossible in most cases for there to be a company that controls exactly 100% market share. Monopoly comes into play when a company has sufficient market share to use monopolistic powers.

The social network type that Facebook provides is naturally a monopoly because of the network effect. The more people who are on the network, the more valuable it becomes. At first, there were lots of social networks. Eventually people gravitated a little more towards Facebook than the others, and the others went bankrupt. In the beginning, there was no monopoly because there was no existing social network. Now that there is one, it will always be a monopoly who actually controls the network.

The social network is not really something that Facebook owns. It's a network of relationships between people. Facebook simply attempts to host that network. That's the monopoly. If you somehow were to require social networks to provide basic interoperability for the fundamental functions of social networks, then Facebook would no longer have monopoly powers. But requiring that seems sketchy, at best, since it would imply the state has more authority over commerce than it really should.

Facebook literally doesn't have to do anything to exercise monopolistic powers because their power comes from the network effect. There's no way around that fact.


A similar situation arises in video networks. YouTube gets away with egregious shit because network effect makes it impractical for people to use multiple video services. Since the vast majority of videos get put on YouTube, it's the monopolistic video provider for English speakers. That's just how it is. And if YouTube pisses people off enough to leave YouTube, the already existing social network would just transition to some other host, and that host would become the new monopoly.

This really shouldn't need to be explained to you.

[Kath]

You continue to demonstrate your inability to understand what a monopoly is.

I complain about the power company, because I literally have nowhere else to go. I don't think I'm even legally allowed to opt out and live without power. That's a monopoly using its' monopolistic power.

Everyone can explain it to you, provide dictionary definitions, provide examples of real monopolies .... but we cannot understand it for you. You're on your own, there. Get back to me when government forces me to use FB and points a gun at anyone who attempts to use an alternate social media site.

[DBTrek]

We really need to bring economic literacy back into the classroom. What better way to combat the rise of social marxists and easily duped citizens who don’t understand the costs of their desires?

Probably should bring back PE, home ec, shop, and music as mandatory as well. But that’s a different thread.

[Kath]

We really need to bring economic literacy back into the classroom. What better way to combat the rise of social marxists and easily duped citizens who don’t understand the costs of their desires?

Probably should bring back PE, home ec, shop, and music as mandatory as well. But that’s a different thread.

This really is basic stuff. We did some study on this in HS, probably not even an econ class. There was a huge nationwide discussion about the government breakup of Ma Bell in the early 80s. My guess is we discussed it in a social studies type class.

[Speaker to Animals]

You continue to demonstrate your inability to understand what a monopoly is.

I complain about the power company, because I literally have nowhere else to go. I don't think I'm even legally allowed to opt out and live without power. That's a monopoly using its' monopolistic power.

Everyone can explain it to you, provide dictionary definitions, provide examples of real monopolies .... but we cannot understand it for you. You're on your own, there. Get back to me when government forces me to use FB and points a gun at anyone who attempts to use an alternate social media site.

I understand very well what a monopoly is. A monopoly is a seller with sufficient market share to exercise monopolistic powers. You don't trigger regulation and trust busting until you exercise those powers.

The idea that a monopoly is somebody who controls 100% of the market share is fucking childish and has nothing to do with actual economics.

[DBTrek]

But it does include the ability to prevent the rise of alternatives and competitors- something no social media platform can achieve under current conditions.

[Speaker to Animals]

But it does include the ability to prevent the rise of alternatives and competitors- something no social media platform can achieve under current conditions.

They actually do, but they don't have to deliberately exercise those powers. It's just the network effect. This is why Facebook and YouTube are effectively monopolies. They can't help but be them because the nature of a social network means everybody naturally will want to gravitate to one host. The reality is that these companies don't actually own the social networks, but host them.

If Facebook continues to piss people off into leaving social media altogether, then somebody will likely start up a competing social network to lure them back into social media. But that new network host will simply become the next monopoly. And it's Facebook's monopoly to lose with their egregious behavior. Same with YouTube.


This is basic shit either of you would have learned had you actually taken macroeconomics in college.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

[DBTrek]

Lots of folks on LinkedIn.
Lots of vids on other platforms (especially for content YouTube doesn’t host).

Not sure how to address the “natural gravitation of people” argument other than to say that if it isn’t coerced then that sounds like freedom.