[trident5000]

I think were going to have to start introducing modern definitions for modern times when it comes to anti-trust. For instance "network effect monopoly/oligopoly" should probably be something defined. Monopolistic domination is more governed by this than anything else today (economies of scale, bundling, etc)

[colejohnson66]

We also need to stop calling it a “monopoly”. Every time someone brings up that word, someone says that they’re not technically a monopoly because there’s other options. We should be calling it something related to the name of the laws that would be used: anti trust. Are there any words that would be more appropriate?

[supermatt]

Or apply the rules to trusts instead of thinking they only apply to monopolies.

Personally, I think a company should conform to a single NCL category (like trademarks)

It is unfair competition when a megacorp can compete at loss to establish dominance in a new sector - yet these megacorps do it regularly. Buying their way in, or providing a service at a loss until the competition is eradicated.

Youtube is the perfect example of a loss leader. Impossible to provide for "free" unless you own a massive ad network and substantial global infrastructure. It is simply "unfair" that it exists in its current form. You cant run youtube off google ads - only google can do that, because they get both the publishers share and the ad networks share of the revenue split!

[simonh]

The thing with network effects is that we the users benefit if all the other users (or a majority of them anyway) are on the same system. The answer isn't to force diversity because that just imposes costs and inconvenience on users just as much as it hurts providers.

In a sense in a situation like this you can consider the customer to be essentially all of us as a group. Therefore as a group it makes sense for us to negotiate terms with the service provider, hence I think there's a reasonable role for government to regulate. After all our elected representatives are there to do exactly that - represent us and our interests.

Honestly I would prefer minimal or no regulatory intervention. I don't think the degree of any harm being done currently is sufficient to make imposing regulation worth the risks of getting those regulations wrong and making things worse for users. I think the degree of any current abuses are relatively trivial from a user perspective, however I do accept the basic principle that regulation may be necessary and appropriate, and companies like google need to know that and act accordingly.

In reality I'm a Brit and these are mainly US companies, so it's mainly up to you guys, but I'm sure the EU and other governments, should look at this.

[_v7gu]

We do, it's called "monopolistic behavior" and you don't need to have a certain market share to get fined for it.

[SheinhardtWigCo]

Care to try to define it? I think this is an interesting idea and I wonder how to meaningfully distinguish between market domination that is, let’s say, “earned” fairly, and that which is obtained by exploiting network effects.

[guywhocodes]

Network singularity abuse?