The fact of the matter is that I don’t care if something is a monopoly as long as it’s a monopoly for it’s quality. Reddit used to be that, a hub for damn near all of my interests, and I used Boost to make the experience great.
But reddit is getting worse with this change, so I’m here now.
I don’t care if something is a monopoly as long as it’s a monopoly for it’s quality.
But the problem with social media is that monopolies in this area aren’t about quality, they are about user base size. Which makes them impossible to dethrone once they hit critical mass. Reddit and other social media sites have a massive amount of content with people willing to figure out a way to sift through the garbage.
It will be interesting to see how bad things get once reddit moderators can no longer use bots and other tools in order to help them sift through content due to the API changes.
Yeah. There’s nothing inherently wrong with monopolies. The problem with them is just the behaviour that they tend to slip into, the squeezing of their customers for maximum revenue while not bothering to invest any of it in improving their services. There are some “natural” monopolies that manage to do okay, though usually as a result of government regulation.
Some monopolies are so solidly “okay” that we don’t even notice that they’re monopolies. The Internet, for example. What alternatives to it exist? None, really. But since it’s a decentralized protocol rather than some sort of Internet Incorporated with shareholders and quarterly profits to maximize and whatnot it’s managed to stay good and the fact that it’s a monopoly is actually beneficial in many ways.
As for monopolies… they are inherently bad because of the lack of motivation to innovate, or improve. You have no other option, and no ability to create one.
I don’t want to stray too far from the topic, but I feel like I need to address the mention of the internet as a monopoly.
If you’re talking about TCP/IP, it’s just a protocol that the most widely used - but others exist, and outperform it in their niches.
The internet is a collection of technologies that are owned and operated by thousands of companies. All have competition in their arenas.
ISPs have constructed local fiefdoms - but there are nearly always multiple services that one can use. Backbone companies own the major routes, but you can almost always go around one if it misbehaves. Myriad email providers, websites, etc exist to offer choices, as well.
Categorically, the internet can not be or become a monopoly. It’s core purpose is to provide as many avenues as possible to connect machines to AVOID monopolization.
Interestingly, the downfall of Communism was precisely that political communism forms a government-managed monopoly, exhibiting exactly the characteristics you outline. People who rail against communism are really railing against monopoly and the stagnancy and corruption it creates. And yet somehow some of these people are all-in on libertarianism.
The fact of the matter is that I don’t care if something is a monopoly as long as it’s a monopoly for it’s quality. Reddit used to be that, a hub for damn near all of my interests, and I used Boost to make the experience great.
But reddit is getting worse with this change, so I’m here now.
But the problem with social media is that monopolies in this area aren’t about quality, they are about user base size. Which makes them impossible to dethrone once they hit critical mass. Reddit and other social media sites have a massive amount of content with people willing to figure out a way to sift through the garbage.
It will be interesting to see how bad things get once reddit moderators can no longer use bots and other tools in order to help them sift through content due to the API changes.
Yeah. There’s nothing inherently wrong with monopolies. The problem with them is just the behaviour that they tend to slip into, the squeezing of their customers for maximum revenue while not bothering to invest any of it in improving their services. There are some “natural” monopolies that manage to do okay, though usually as a result of government regulation.
Some monopolies are so solidly “okay” that we don’t even notice that they’re monopolies. The Internet, for example. What alternatives to it exist? None, really. But since it’s a decentralized protocol rather than some sort of Internet Incorporated with shareholders and quarterly profits to maximize and whatnot it’s managed to stay good and the fact that it’s a monopoly is actually beneficial in many ways.
@FaceDeer
@hedge @0xtero @gk99
As for monopolies… they are inherently bad because of the lack of motivation to innovate, or improve. You have no other option, and no ability to create one.
I don’t want to stray too far from the topic, but I feel like I need to address the mention of the internet as a monopoly.
If you’re talking about TCP/IP, it’s just a protocol that the most widely used - but others exist, and outperform it in their niches.
The internet is a collection of technologies that are owned and operated by thousands of companies. All have competition in their arenas.
ISPs have constructed local fiefdoms - but there are nearly always multiple services that one can use. Backbone companies own the major routes, but you can almost always go around one if it misbehaves. Myriad email providers, websites, etc exist to offer choices, as well.
Categorically, the internet can not be or become a monopoly. It’s core purpose is to provide as many avenues as possible to connect machines to AVOID monopolization.
Interestingly, the downfall of Communism was precisely that political communism forms a government-managed monopoly, exhibiting exactly the characteristics you outline. People who rail against communism are really railing against monopoly and the stagnancy and corruption it creates. And yet somehow some of these people are all-in on libertarianism.
Succinctly stated. I wish authoritarian left types would understand this.