[fullshark]

Once upon a time these companies valued their user base, afraid they would leave and find another way to use their time. I guess they’ve got the data that their users are all addicted and will never do that. At least until they push too hard.

[mentalgear]

Unfair business practices and quasi monopolies (Microsoft), waled gardens (apple), and in the past 15 years advanced data analysis let's those companies exactly calculate how far they can make their users "suffer/bleed/annoy" and stop just right before the breaking point.

Also, if real competition arises, it's just bought and merged (Facebook buying instagram) since anti-trust laws have not been properly applied, especially in the digital sector.

[immibis]

And then the breaking point becomes the new normal, and the new breaking point becomes farther away.

Microsoft keeps deleting ways to install Windows without signing up for a Microsoft account.

Twice in my life I've created a Microsoft account to do something that required a Microsoft account, and then a few days later they demanded my phone number. Because they know perfectly well that if you demand a phone number during signup, it deters more people from signing up, but if you demand it after they've already started using their account, they're less likely to be willing to throw away the account. I was, though.

For some reason they haven't yet done that with my Minecraft-migrated account. Or did they? Maybe I entered my phone number there and forgot I did so.

[nradov]

It's really tough to apply anti-trust law to companies that aren't selling commodities. What would or wouldn't count as a competitor to Instagram? Since it's free for end users, the customers are mostly advertisers. And they have a zillion other channels to get their message out. Meta hardly has anything approaching a monopoly for either advertisers or consumers. Consumers frequently post pictures on X, LinkedIn, Google Photos, Strava, Snapchat, etc.

[xethos]

> It's really tough to apply anti-trust law to companies that aren't selling commodities.

The EU, rather famously, managed with Microsoft. It's mostly the US that's beholden to large corporations over people, rather than it being an intractible problem.

> Meta hardly has anything approaching a monopoly for either advertisers or consumers

Meta does not command the lions share of the time spent on social media, but claiming >20% of revenue is oligopoly territory [0,1]

> Consumers frequently post pictures on X, LinkedIn, Google Photos, Strava, Snapchat

Do you really belive LinkedIn and Google Photos compete with SnapChat and Facebook for "Sharing photos with friends on social media"? If so, you might as well throw Flikr and Imgur on your list, though I wouldn't count them in the same market either.

[0] https://www.emarketer.com/content/meta-s-ad-revenue-share-va...

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/242549/digital-ad-market...

[Zak]

When there's a significant opportunity for growth in userbase, corporate social media is good to users. Once that plateaus, they look to grow something else, usually advertising revenue.

The current incentive structure rewards growth more than a stable profitable state, which I think is a mistake.

[exe34]

that's because of the network effect: while you're a small part of people's network, you can be replaced easily. once you've connected 60-90% of their network (including the sort of people they follow online, not necessary people they meet in meatspace), you don't need to worry too much about getting replaced.

[palata]

> Once upon a time these companies valued their user base

Because that's what was bringing profit then. We should never forget, that's the whole point of capitalism: companies maximize profit. Companies are not human beings with emotions, they are profit-maximizing entities.

They evolve in a framework set by regulations. The society, made of human beings with emotions, is supposed to define that framework in such a way that what makes companies profitable is also good for the people.