Because the first guy to come up with a workable, economic solution dominates their end of the market, and competition is at best desultory.

So you have stand alone BBSs. Some generate revenue, some do not.

Then Facebook comes along. Facebook generates revenue while charging its users nothing at all. (Myspace was an earlier, failed attempt at this) Then they own an entire sector of human behavior, which they analyze and sell to outside interests.

Then MeWe came along, had a better platform, promised to stop the abuses and censorship, but there wasn't enough market share left for them to do much of anything at all...They lacked the financial muscle to compete with Facebook. Nobody on the planet has the financial muscle to compete with Facebook.

This has now been proven to be true, so Facebook does whatever they please, knowing that folks like MeWe will not unseat them in the foreseeable future. You have no realistic choice in the market, as a consumer.

Youtube has the exact same monopoly, for the exact same reasons.

And they're not going to come up with actual solutions to blindly censoring entire topics, because there is no market pressure for them to do so.

There are numerous offline examples of the same problem.

So the market is an aristocracy in fact, and a meritocracy only in theory.

Also worth mentioning: If a free market as described were possible then, by definition, that's what we would have, because any attempt to dislodge it would be derailed by market forces.

Actually most people demand censorship from their social media. (The advertisers definitely do.)

There is very little anger over the things I've pointed out here.

Most people will viciously squash anything that moves out of their comfort zone. This is hardly news.

"Because the first guy to come up with a workable, economic solution dominates their end of the market, and competition is at best desultory."

As long as the monopoly isn't fostered, supported, or protected (or opposed) by the the big stick of government, why is this a problem? And how is this a negation of the free market? Fortune favors the bold.

#

"Then Facebook comes along. Facebook generates revenue while charging its users nothing at all. (Myspace was an earlier, failed attempt at this) Then they own an entire sector of human behavior, which they analyze and sell to outside interests."

I think they successfully cater to to what folks want.

If folks don't want their info sold, they can choose to not participate (don't use facebook).

If facebook doesn't lie to their customers, then what's the problem?

If they do lie: hold them to account, or stop associating with 'em.

#

"Then MeWe came along, had a better platform, promised to stop the abuses and censorship, but there wasn't enough market share left for them to do much of anything at all...They lacked the financial muscle to compete with Facebook. Nobody on the planet has the financial muscle to compete with Facebook."

It wasn't a lack of an infinitely fluid market (share), it was a lack of successful marketing. They didn't advertise themselves well or enough. If they had, and if indeed they had a better service, then they shoulda succeeded.

This is how free competition works. The fairness is in the ability to start the business, not in some guarantee of success. That is: the ant isn't prohibited from goin' up against the anteater, but his success or failure is entirely on him.

#

"This has now been proven to be true, so Facebook does whatever they please, knowing that folks like MeWe will not unseat them in the foreseeable future. You have no realistic choice in the market, as a consumer."

If customers are satisfied, or are not entirely displeased, with the service, and if no one else is steppin' up with a better product and successful marketing, then where's the complaint? How has the free market been short circuited?

#

"And they're not going to come up with actual solutions to blindly censoring entire topics, because there is no market pressure for them to do so."

Exactly. If the bulk of customers aren't particularly bothered by bias or advertising or censoring (which it really isn't), facebook won't change a thing. Why should they?

#

"So the market is an aristocracy in fact, and a meritocracy only in theory."

A free market is nuthin' but folks transactin' freely (aristocracy and meritocracy have nuthin' to do with it).

Reality is: we don't have a free market (except on the local level, sometimes) cuz our employees favor some and restrict others. They monkey around with supply and demand.

I just heard about MeWe this morning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeWe_(social_media)

Me, I never heard of 'em before Luce's mention of them up-thread.

I take wiki with a grain, but, if the piece is accurate, they don't seem so down & out as Luce portrayed 'em.

Why does it matter how it's foster, supported, or protected?

They cater to what people will put up with in exchange for pictures of cats.

They did have a better service. Their attempts at advertising were buried alive, as they lacked the financial muscle to saturate non-social media outlets enough to penetrate the market.

Yes. The first past the post has effectively a permanent monopoly. That's an aristocracy.

It hasn't. It's just not a free market.


You have one choice. Choose freely.

They've been around for 9 years.

As a result of low/no traffic, they are effectively dark web.

ie, the people that go there now go there because they want to talk about things without being seen doing it.

"Why does it matter how it's foster, supported, or protected?"

Cuz free and managed are not synonymous.

#

"They cater to what people will put up with in exchange for pictures of cats."

And if the bulk or folks are satisfied with tradin' off info for cat videos, where's the problem?

#

"They did have a better service. Their attempts at advertising were buried alive, as they lacked the financial muscle to saturate non-social media outlets enough to penetrate the market."

Well, the wiki link paints a somewhat less bleak picture. As i say, though, i take wiki with a grain. Anyway, an uphill climb is not the same as 'no, you aren't allowed on the hill'.

#

"The first past the post has effectively a permanent monopoly. That's an aristocracy."

Ain't nuthin' permanent about a natural monopoly. It may last for generations but one innovation can topple it. And, no, you're misusing aristocracy. It's easier to lambaste 'em when you can paint them as privileged, but we both know that ain't the case.

Powerful? Yep. Protected? Mebbe. Aristocratic? No.

#

"It's just not a free market."

It's not, but not for the reasons you state.

#

"Choose freely."

And wisely.

Just so we're clear, you only object to government interference in the market?

When the big stick of gov is levied against, or used to to protect, someone in the economy (even with the best of intentions), this is rank interference that short circuits the market. Let buyers and sellers, in their endless, on-goin', transactions punish and reward. Take offenders to court, if you must, as last resort (let those decisions inform similar matters down the road [and keep the goddamned legislators under heel and away from the marketplace).

My standard is simple: Do not knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprive, in part or whole, the other guy of his life, liberty, or property, and you can do as you like (in the bedroom, in the church, in business).

Sell whatever you like, as you like, be honest about what it is you're sellin', make a million (if you can).

So is that a yes or a no?

I would take that as a yes.

👍🏻