> Antitrust is much broader than "monopolies".

I'm with you here.

> Saying "monopoly" is just shorthand for market power, it's not a binary definition.

No, the word "monopoly" has an actual definition.

You can waste time on semantics or you accept that practically everyone means "company that abuses their overwhelming market power to create friction in the market" when they say monopoly.

It isn't semantics. You want to use the word monopoly to mean something different than what it means. Feel free to make the more nuanced point about "abusing market power", but if you're building your argument around the word monopoly, you need to be using that word to mean what it means.

Your layman definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[3]:

> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

I mean I agree, just pointing out that you're not really convincing anyone here and complaining about this isn't very productive since you, I, and everyone else here understands what is meant.

I seriously doubt that's true. I'm sure I'm not convincing any of the people debating me in their own comments, but there are always other people reading the debate, who don't have as strong of preconceptions as the people commenting, and I suspect at least a few such people have thought to themselves "hmmm, yeah, he's right, those don't seem like monopolies". (I'm sure there are people being convinced of the opposite too.) It's a mistake to think the audience for a public discussion is limited to the people commenting.

Edit to add: And to the "everyone knows what is meant". No, that's not true, lots of people have become confused by the usage of the word "monopoly" to describe the issues with big tech companies, through its pervasive usage in congressional hearings and media. Using confusing inaccurate language is not harmless, it confuses the debate.

> mean something different than what it means.

Literally this is semantics. Literally, you are arguing about the definition of a word. So yes, by definition, you are quit literally arguing about what a word means, which is semantics.

That's what the word "semantics" means.

This is fair enough, but by saying "you're just arguing semantics", the implication is that it does not matter what words are used and what they mean. And I described why I do think it matters (in summary: the use of the word monopoly for this argument really does confuse people about what the problem is). So I'm debating semantics, yep, but in my view, I'm not just debating semantics.

"monopoly", "monopoly power", and "market power" all have related but very much distinct definitions.

This is how the justice department defines them: https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

>Antitrust is much broader than "monopolies".

Yes.

> It's all about concentrated power.

No, absolutely not. There are many activities which violate antitrust law which have nothing to do with "concentrated power". Nor is "concentrated power" something which is banned in antitrust law (because it isn't clear what it is!).

~ Antitrust economist