Lousy analogy. There is NOTHING stopping you from not using FB/Twitter.
They’re not like an operating system, where M$ literally required any computer manufacturer which put Window$ on _a_ computer to pay for copies - installed or not - for ALL the computers they made.
They’re not like an OS, which once installed severely limits your options; you couldn’t (at the time) just flip between operating systems.
(And I think the court ruling against M$ in that case was wrong anyway.)
You want a FB alternative? Here: http://MeWe.com
You want a Twitter alternative? Here: http://Gab.AI
You want a YouTube alternative? Here: http://Vimeo.com
You want a Google alternative? Here: http://DuckDuckGo.com
M$ did kinda shove Explorer in users’ faces. They had the advantage of it already being on your system, while Netscape etc required a then-painful download process.
YOU choose to use Facebook et al, when others are just as easy to launch. I mean really - you’re bitching about “monopoly” when alternatives are literally a click/touch one inch above this sentence? Really?
Those service you are promoting are no more alternatives than candles are a replacement for electric lights.
Used Duck for a long time, but unaware of the others.... thanks.
No. Perfectly apt analogy. The behemoths I listed are effectively monopolies. Their market dominance and network effects from being the established platform make it well nigh impossible for others to EFFECTIVELY compete.....the same rationale that was used in regulatory action against Microsoft.
It’s not that there are no competitors. It’s that twitter, YouTube and Facebook have already effectively cornered the market. Look at the sheer volume of content as compared to their tiny competitors.
As monopolies they should be subject to antitrust action by the DOJ - particularly if they are going to abuse their monopoly position by censoring speech like they are.