[greggyb]

I've just come across the statistic before. Here's a quick search hit, saying e-commerce as of a year and a bit ago that indicates 35% of e-commerce.

https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2019/12/amazons-mark...

Maybe they do want to monopolize, but I'm pretty sure that they couldn't, what with Walmart, Target, eBay, Ali Express, and other major global players in the space. Amazon's want is largely irrelevant to a conversation like this.

[throwanem]

On the other hand, it's harder to make a sentence flow around "oligopolistic".

I feel like seeing that Amazon owned a third of US ecommerce, before the pandemic stomped brick-and-mortar flat, goes more to my point than to yours.

[greggyb]

Your point has changed at least twice in this thread.

My point was simply that "monopoly" is not an accurate term here.

You can't say "oligopoly may be more accurate, so I've been correct."

[throwanem]

Sure I can! You're quibbling over my choice of a single, admittedly inexact but contextually plain, word, rather than engage at all with the actual point I made. I'm just trying to meet you where you are.

[JumpCrisscross]

> a single, admittedly inexact but contextually plain, word

Within the context of a policy discussion, a monopoly versus oligopoly is a pretty material difference. Every growing business at some level “wants” to monopolise their niche.

[Nevermark]

You are still not addressing the point despite wording clarifications that addressed your original quibbles.

[greggyb]

You're responding to someone else now.

I'll quote myself:

> I don't really have much to disagree with you about, but maybe you want to check the "monopoly" claim.

If you want to have a debate, we can. Name something you want to disagree on.