[basch]

But this new paradigm of antitrust isn’t about if there’s one two or three of something. It’s a more complex form of antitrust.

The Amazon antitrust paradox is about how they aren’t a market leader in tons of their product categories but that they can cross leverage advantages between product categories and verticals to create anticompetitiveness. It’s an analysis of the internal structure of the business, not if they have competition in a narrow subset of outcomes.

Monopoly is being used as a substitute for the words bad actor or predatory not duopoly etc. IMHO it’s sloppiness and jargon to invoke emotion, and I’d prefer they used more precise words.

[okamiueru]

Aren't we arguing the same point? Or am I missing something?

[basch]

I am saying the word monopoly IS being misused, but I am not arguing that it is because its actually a duopoly, but it is being used as a substitute word in places better words belong.

[okamiueru]

I do not disagree at all with that. In fact, I also think I said, or implied at the least, that it was used incorrectly. However, for the sake of discussing the articles, every time this comes up, it would be more productive if people still understood that it isn't the monopoly part that is important, but the antitrust. Similar to what you were saying.