Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could say that about anything -- nothing is completely static 1. Contracts are a thing. You can draft a contract with your vendor that guarantees certain terms for a certain duration. 2. You should be wary of wandering into commitments (including de facto commitments e.g. "vendor lock-in")--there are plenty of good reasons to do so, but one should make sure to properly consider the cost. The problem is that doi…
It is more of an monopsony[1] than a monopoly. If you are looking to buy a smartphone there are still options. If you are looking to sell software for smart phones, Apple is by far the most lucrative platform and they have a lock on publishing software for iOS. It is very difficult in the US to survive as a software developer for Android only. The anti-trust frameworks in the US are based largely on monopolies and th…
I would like to see the US crack down on anti-competitive behavior in general, but especially in cases where companies are deriving value by gate-keeping some large network. To this effect, I think Apple is a relatively minor problem compared to social media networks. Consumers have no meaningful choice (hopefully I don’t need to elaborate on why Facebook vs Twitter is a false choice) and it allows social media companies to get away with all kinds of awful behavior, but especially the ability to steer the course of democracy (by determining at scale who is exposed to which ideas and at what potency) and then selling that as a service to the highest bidder or even serving as an attack vector for other states to steer our democracy (or other democracies for that matter). A monopoly over the flow of speech is intolerable for a democracy, and at least in America where conservatives are concerned about censorship of conservative speech by Silicon Valley progressives and liberals are concerned about Russian manipulation, it seems like a naturally bipartisan concern.
Edit: genuinely wondering what downvoters are objecting to in particular? Do you not believe that social media companies have a monopoly over their own networks? Do you disagree that they can and do steer public opinion and thus public policy? Do you disagree that this is a bad outcome? Perhaps it’s a bad outcome but regulation is an ineffective solution (e.g., libertarianism)? Educate me.