Is fb actively stifling competition? Is there a market failure?
They bought two of their competitors and copied the features of a third. None of that may meet the definition of "stifling competition," but it's a strategy that did neutralize potential competitors.
With 29% of the world's population logging in to FB at least once a month (2.23 bn "monthly active users" / 7.7 bn), and receiving algorithmically target messages from Facebook and its advertisers, there is tremendous potential for abuse.
If they're suppressing the debate, then yes, they are. When it comes to political speech, the democratic governance process is definitely a competitor.
> Is there a market failure?
As long as Facebook is the go-to platform for political advertising and they use their position as the market to influence market positions, then yes, there is a failure. Imagine if the NYSE chairman picked the stock winners every day, not because he's a prophet, but because he literally decided, in advance, who's going to get to move shares today.
Yes, basically. Or at least, they have a partial monopoly on social media.
> Is fb actively stifling competition?
They've been buying competitors. That's classic monopolistic behavior to stifle competition.
> Is there a market failure?
Pretty damn close. Even Google couldn't moose its way in.
It would be interesting to see Google release some sort of decentralized open source social networking software connected to Google Play. Something like Android, but for social networks. I could see FB being bothered by that.
Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook.
I'm going to sound a bit paternalistic and anti-capitalist here, because I am. Facebook is no longer just a company, it's an institution that should definitely be regulated. It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true. There was plenty of fake information on facebook around the 2016 election that influenced uneducated/uncritical/unintelligent voters' opinions of the candidates. Having content curation guidelines that are informed by non-facebook entities almost certainly is needed, imo.
This is the exact reason why Russia blocked (or at least tried to) block Telegram, and why Facebook is banned in China.
When I say dissemination, I'm not just talking about elites. If the average Joe wanted to reach out asany people as they know and tell them something, tell me how they should do it?
These traditional forms of media are scrambling for likes/comments just as much as the next influencer.
Now compare that with Google -- most businesses need to be listed on Google or they will lose significant amount of business. Facebook is nothing by comparison.
Being popular doesn't make something a monopoly.
No and you don’t need to be a monopoly to violate antitrust laws and engage in anti competitive behavior.
I dont believe you. You know exactly what is Facebooks monopoly.
No offense but why are you on this forum? Do you seriously expect others to conform to your opinions?
So either you are trolling, or you'll be so kind as to actually post the arguments for why Facebook is a monopoly so we can ensure we're discussing under a shared context.