Quote (Thor123422 @ 27 May 2020 05:05)
and I wholly reject that these companies have a monopoly on one "type" of social media. That's splitting things too fine to be meaningful. There's a ton of social media websites that can get opinions out. You can podcast on YouTube, SoundCloud, Apple ITunes, and upload them to any number of websites. While YouTube is the largest, there's other video hosting websites like Vimeo. If you want to make short posts you can do that on Twitter, Facebook, or even the community tab on your youtube channel. Even better, you can literally do all of them at once in a combined web presence where you tweet, talk about tweets on youtube, tweet your youtube uploads, and etc. etc.
To say social media companies have a monopoly is like saying that Coke has a monopoly because it's the only one that can sell Coke. These are flavors, not different products.
Social media is unique in the sense that (ceteris paribus) "higher number of users = better product". This is not the case with drinks, food, cars, tourism, clothes, sports, financial services or any other (mature/established) mainstream industry.
If Coke doubled its market share, their drinks would still taste the same. If the NBA doubled its viewership, the quality of play would still be the same. The quality of services provided by banks remains flat or perhaps increases very marginally when its customer base grows.
In normal industries, better product -> more customers. In social media, better product -> more customers -> better product, leading to a self-reinforcing circle. There is just a HUGE upside in everyone being on the same social network.
Perhaps you're not as aware of this effect because you're (iirc?!) too young to have experienced facebook vs myspace. You're also from the U.S., so you havent experienced first-hand how facebook squashed the similar social network sites which had been popping up in Europe in the mid-2000s and which were VERY popular at the time.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 26 2020 09:55pm