[marcusverus]

> If you include network effects, does everyone really have that choice?

The network effects just increase the value-add of the platform, making foregoing the platform more costly (in terms of unclaimed utility). There is still a choice.

> For example, I can't choose not to use WhatsApp to keep in touch with my family and friends in Brazil. It's simply not possible because some of them won't use another messaging app... I'm not really choosing it

Having a compelling reason to use a service is not remotely the same as being forced to use a service.

> it's shadier than that

High-value-add services are not shadier than violence.

[piva00]

> Having a compelling reason to use a service is not remotely the same as being forced to use a service.

Hence "shadier", violence is not shady, it's pretty in your face, it's shady I'm forced to use an app not by choice but just because such apps have captured enough of the market that there is absolutely no way for a competitor to be a suitable replacement.

Sure, I have the choice to simply lose contact with 50% of my family if I would like to stand up to my principles and cut Meta from my life.

Is that really a choice?