Giant companies are the security holes of capitalism. The more centralized industries get, the more they attract socialist political activists. The Bolshevik Revolution was a violent version of this vs. railroad stations, newspapers, etc. Now activism is focused on tech giants.
-
Perhaps the network effect only secures dominance for short time spans. When one platform becomes too dominant, it self-destructs, or just becomes repugnant to the new crop of young people who do not want to share a platform with their parents :D
Network effects & regulatory capture are both common ways to secure dominance. The most important such networks are not user networks but ad networks, since advertisers r social medias' customers (users are product). Advrtisrs r behind much of much of this censorship/"curation".
-
-
Network effects also cut both ways. You can grow rapidly and be replaced rapidly as well. But, if like the publicly traded companies we are discussing, you have massive advantage wrt accessing capital you can buy up the next social network for more that its worth to compete w/ u.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.