[mrcwinn]

I understand this case is about Facebook and not Instagram, but these quotes might offer another perspective.

>they appear to be reaching critical mass as a place you go to share photos

>[Instagram could] copy what we’re doing now … I view this as a big strategic risk for us if we don’t completely own the photos space.

In a way, this is effectively saying that Instagram could itself become a monopoly (or put differently, come to monopolize). Right? Isn't that what Meta fears?

It makes me wonder if, at least in the case of social networks, there's a natural tendency toward monopolization. In other words, is there not LESS utility to the consumer if we have a bunch of small, competitive social networks duking it out?

I'm not here to excuse Meta and certainly this is the case for federation. I guess I'm left wondering, what exactly was Meta supposed to do?

[BlueTemplar]

There's a natural tendency towards monopolization in companies in general. But competition is good, as the alternative is stagnation (especially once a company gets powerful enough to sway governments).

Likewise, platforms are evil, and social network platforms in particular probably shouldn't be allowed to exist. Protocols don't have this fragmentation issue that I guess you are aiming at but never stating directly.

Facebook shouldn't have engaged in anticompetitive practices.