Can a monopoly survive when rejecting 50% of its customers?

[NightHawkeye]

It's a simple question really. (And, yes, it's about politics.) Twitter and Facebook may be be the most obvious proponents of the practice as they searched out, banned, shadow-banned and made posting difficult for outspoken conservatives using the platforms. Google has done it too though, most notably on Youtube but seemingly also across all its other product offerings. Amazon couldn't resist joining in as well by shutting down Parler. Each of the companies mentioned has had dominance in its market area. The question being asked is can these companies maintain that dominance after dispossessing and alienating much of their customer base?

History suggests that the answer is no. Even the very recent history of Fox News is a cautionary tale showing just how quickly a company's fortune can slide from dominance into the toilet. Mere months ago Fox News was not just the highest rated news network, it was the highest rated cable channel of all time. Now, after repeatedly thumbing its corporate nose at its customer base, Fox News is effectively a wanna-be news network once again, with ratings below that of any other cable news network. Fox News is already finding it necessary to reduce staff to cut costs as its ratings sink lower and lower week after week. Too bad, so sad. Boo-hoo.

For those who follow the stock market there's another cautionary tale in-process now; the much bally-hooed hedge funds which have dominated and run roughshod over the market for years, picking winners and losers as it suits them, have been taken to the woodshed by little investors who recently figured out a counter-move to the abusive hedge-fund practice of shorting weaker stocks.

GameStop Stock: In Battle Between Hedge Funds And Reddit Day Traders, Melvin Capital Closes Its Short

Retail traders have become a significant part of the story and they are effectively telling Wall Street that it is no longer in control of stock prices. Generally speaking, institutional traders such as hedge funds will bet against retail traders. Commission-free trading has started to change the game and since last year, there is no doubt that retail traders have started to gain much more control.​

Personally, I suspect that Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon will feel the pain from their overt political abuses sooner rather than later, either sliding from dominance or cleaning house and making amends. The former seems much more likely than penance though. We'll see soon enough. Stay tuned.

 

[MIDutch]

Hint: the word fragment "mono" in your title may give you a clue.

It's sort of an important part of the definition.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Hint: the word fragment "mono" in your title may give you a clue.

It's sort of an important part of the definition.

That is indeed the point.

The companies mentioned may have dominance but competition can rise quickly to change that. Many companies have found out to their chagrin that market dominance can change on a dime, regardless of how much control a company may seem to have.

 

[SigurdReginson]

50%?... More like a third. Even then, that's only a third of their US customer base. These are global companies that serve the whole world.

The reason fox suffered so much is that their viewership is only for the US, and on top of that it's only for conservatives. Of course it would effect them in a major way.

Though I have no doubt that some day these companies will be replaced by something else, it will be because that other thing provided a service that resonated with the public more (or they will actually be split apart because they ARE monopolies), not because of cancel culture.

 

[Arcangl86]

Even if it was true that FB,Twitter, and Google were banning all North American conservatives and not just those who violate their policies, they are all global companies with huge user bases. I don't think they have anything to worry about. For context, Twitter has 321 Million users. Parler has 10 MIllion. Even assuming there is no overlap, Twitter is over 30 times bigger then Parler.

 

[A2SG]

It's a simple question really. (And, yes, it's about politics.) Twitter and Facebook may be be the most obvious proponents of the practice as they searched out, banned, shadow-banned and made posting difficult for outspoken conservatives using the platforms. Google has done it too though, most notably on Youtube but seemingly also across all its other product offerings. Amazon couldn't resist joining in as well by shutting down Parler. Each of the companies mentioned has had dominance in its market area. The question being asked is can these companies maintain that dominance after dispossessing and alienating much of their customer base?

History suggests that the answer is no. Even the very recent history of Fox News is a cautionary tale showing just how quickly a company's fortune can slide from dominance into the toilet. Mere months ago Fox News was not just the highest rated news network, it was the highest rated cable channel of all time. Now, after repeatedly thumbing its corporate nose at its customer base, Fox News is effectively a wanna-be news network once again, with ratings below that of any other cable news network. Fox News is already finding it necessary to reduce staff to cut costs as its ratings sink lower and lower week after week. Too bad, so sad. Boo-hoo.

For those who follow the stock market there's another cautionary tale in-process now; the much bally-hooed hedge funds which have dominated and run roughshod over the market for years, picking winners and losers as it suits them, have been taken to the woodshed by little investors who recently figured out a counter-move to the abusive hedge-fund practice of shorting weaker stocks.

GameStop Stock: In Battle Between Hedge Funds And Reddit Day Traders, Melvin Capital Closes Its Short

Retail traders have become a significant part of the story and they are effectively telling Wall Street that it is no longer in control of stock prices. Generally speaking, institutional traders such as hedge funds will bet against retail traders. Commission-free trading has started to change the game and since last year, there is no doubt that retail traders have started to gain much more control.​

Personally, I suspect that Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon will feel the pain from their overt political abuses sooner rather than later, either sliding from dominance or cleaning house and making amends. The former seems much more likely than penance though. We'll see soon enough. Stay tuned.

Not sure I understand the problem here. Isn't this just the free market at work? If a bakery can deny service to whomever they wish, why can't Twitter?

If there is enough demand for the service Twitter, et al, are denying, surely someone will come along to provide it. If there are enough customers, then that new player will prosper, too.

Capitalism at work.

-- A2SG, I thought you guys liked that.....

 

[Albion]

Personally, I suspect that Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon will feel the pain from their overt political abuses sooner rather than later, either sliding from dominance or cleaning house and making amends. The former seems much more likely than penance though. We'll see soon enough. Stay tuned.

You may be right about that. The market forces that are at work suggest what you have outlined. But on the other hand, Facebook and Twitter have the ability to neutralize alternatives, as we saw with Parler. Beyond that, Facebook, and perhaps Twitter also, won't lose all of their moderate and conservative and apolitical users. That is for several reasons--the inconvenience of switching to any alternative, plus the loss of the information and friends that they've enjoyed on Facebook and Twitter among them.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not sure I understand the problem here. Isn't this just the free market at work? If a bakery can deny service to whomever they wish, why can't Twitter?

Last I heard, a bakery can't arbitrarily deny service.

If there is enough demand for the service Twitter, et al, are denying, surely someone will come along to provide it.

Curiously, enough, there are. That's why Parler was taken down. It was providing the needed service so quickly it apparently scared the bejeebers out of the big tech oligarchy.

 

[7thKeeper]

You may be right about that. The market forces that are at work suggest what you have outlined. But on the other hand, Facebook and Twitter have the ability to neutralize alternatives, as we saw with Parler.

Are you claiming here that FB or Twitter had something to do with what happened between Parler and AWS?

 

[Albion]

Even if it was true that FB,Twitter, and Google were banning all North American conservatives and not just those who violate their policies, they are all global companies with huge user bases. I don't think they have anything to worry about. For context, Twitter has 321 Million users. Parler has 10 MIllion. Even assuming there is no overlap, Twitter is over 30 times bigger then Parler.

Well, they ARE banning conservatives who do NOT violate their policies, while retaining other members who DO violate them. That is part of the controversy.

I do agree that the very size and name-recognition which Facebook and Twitter enjoy provide a formidable advantage, no matter what arbitrary policies those outfits choose to impose.

 

[adrianmonk]

Well, they ARE banning conservatives who do NOT violate their policies, while retaining other members who DO violate them. That is part of the controversy.

I do agree that the very size and name-recognition which Facebook and Twitter enjoy provide a formidable advantage, no matter what arbitrary policies those outfits choose to impose.

Which conservatives were banned that did not violate the policies of the platform they were banned from ? Can you point to a few examples ?

 

[Albion]

Which conservatives were banned that did not violate the policies of the platform they were banned from ? Can you point to a few examples ?

Sure, but they are not at my fingertips at the moment.

 

[adrianmonk]

Sure, but they are not at my fingertips at the moment.

I did not expect you to have them readily available on demand. You are more than welcome to take time to research and post back when you have done so.

 

[Hank77]

If a bakery can deny service to whomever they wish, why can't Twitter?

The baker in CO cannot deny service to whomever he wishes. He still cannot make wedding cakes for anyone unless he makes wedding cakes for everyone.

 

[Belk]

Last I heard, a bakery can't arbitrarily deny service.

Curiously, enough, there are. That's why Parler was taken down. It was providing the needed service so quickly it apparently scared the bejeebers out of the big tech oligarchy.

Yes they can. They can not deny service to someone simply for being part of a protected class.

 

[essentialsaltes]

People spreading dangerous information and/or making threats of violent insurrection is fortunately a much smaller percentage than 50%.

 

[Sparagmos]

It's a simple question really. (And, yes, it's about politics.) Twitter and Facebook may be be the most obvious proponents of the practice as they searched out, banned, shadow-banned and made posting difficult for outspoken conservatives using the platforms. Google has done it too though, most notably on Youtube but seemingly also across all its other product offerings. Amazon couldn't resist joining in as well by shutting down Parler. Each of the companies mentioned has had dominance in its market area. The question being asked is can these companies maintain that dominance after dispossessing and alienating much of their customer base?

History suggests that the answer is no. Even the very recent history of Fox News is a cautionary tale showing just how quickly a company's fortune can slide from dominance into the toilet. Mere months ago Fox News was not just the highest rated news network, it was the highest rated cable channel of all time. Now, after repeatedly thumbing its corporate nose at its customer base, Fox News is effectively a wanna-be news network once again, with ratings below that of any other cable news network. Fox News is already finding it necessary to reduce staff to cut costs as its ratings sink lower and lower week after week. Too bad, so sad. Boo-hoo.

For those who follow the stock market there's another cautionary tale in-process now; the much bally-hooed hedge funds which have dominated and run roughshod over the market for years, picking winners and losers as it suits them, have been taken to the woodshed by little investors who recently figured out a counter-move to the abusive hedge-fund practice of shorting weaker stocks.

GameStop Stock: In Battle Between Hedge Funds And Reddit Day Traders, Melvin Capital Closes Its Short

Retail traders have become a significant part of the story and they are effectively telling Wall Street that it is no longer in control of stock prices. Generally speaking, institutional traders such as hedge funds will bet against retail traders. Commission-free trading has started to change the game and since last year, there is no doubt that retail traders have started to gain much more control.​

Personally, I suspect that Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon will feel the pain from their overt political abuses sooner rather than later, either sliding from dominance or cleaning house and making amends. The former seems much more likely than penance though. We'll see soon enough. Stay tuned.

Has someone lost 50% of their customers? Who? And why would it be a problem if a monopoly didn’t survive? Sounds like a good thing to me!

 

[Sparagmos]

It's a simple question really. (And, yes, it's about politics.) Twitter and Facebook may be be the most obvious proponents of the practice as they searched out, banned, shadow-banned and made posting difficult for outspoken conservatives using the platforms. Google has done it too though, most notably on Youtube but seemingly also across all its other product offerings. Amazon couldn't resist joining in as well by shutting down Parler. Each of the companies mentioned has had dominance in its market area. The question being asked is can these companies maintain that dominance after dispossessing and alienating much of their customer base?

History suggests that the answer is no. Even the very recent history of Fox News is a cautionary tale showing just how quickly a company's fortune can slide from dominance into the toilet. Mere months ago Fox News was not just the highest rated news network, it was the highest rated cable channel of all time. Now, after repeatedly thumbing its corporate nose at its customer base, Fox News is effectively a wanna-be news network once again, with ratings below that of any other cable news network. Fox News is already finding it necessary to reduce staff to cut costs as its ratings sink lower and lower week after week. Too bad, so sad. Boo-hoo.

For those who follow the stock market there's another cautionary tale in-process now; the much bally-hooed hedge funds which have dominated and run roughshod over the market for years, picking winners and losers as it suits them, have been taken to the woodshed by little investors who recently figured out a counter-move to the abusive hedge-fund practice of shorting weaker stocks.

GameStop Stock: In Battle Between Hedge Funds And Reddit Day Traders, Melvin Capital Closes Its Short

Retail traders have become a significant part of the story and they are effectively telling Wall Street that it is no longer in control of stock prices. Generally speaking, institutional traders such as hedge funds will bet against retail traders. Commission-free trading has started to change the game and since last year, there is no doubt that retail traders have started to gain much more control.​

Personally, I suspect that Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon will feel the pain from their overt political abuses sooner rather than later, either sliding from dominance or cleaning house and making amends. The former seems much more likely than penance though. We'll see soon enough. Stay tuned.

I think you may be under the impression that conservatives who say anything controversial or express support of Trump or spread the word about election fraud have been kicked off of Twitter. But here they are, still tweeting! I mean if the liberals are trying to shut down conservatives they don’t like, why would they leave out Andy Ngo (friend of proud boys and patriot prayer,) Marjorie Taylor Greene (promoter of Q cult theories) and Don Jr? Maybe somebody is telling you fibs to get you all riled up?

 

[MIDutch]

That is indeed the point.

The companies mentioned may have dominance but competition can rise quickly to change that. Many companies have found out to their chagrin that market dominance can change on a dime, regardless of how much control a company may seem to have.

Then why would you use the word 'monopoly' in your thread title?

You could have just as easily said "Can a big company survive when rejecting 50% of its customers?" and it wouldn't have been a total fabrication on your part.

 

[perplexed]

If I ran facebook or Twitter I would feel there would be no way I could keep people like me and people like Albion happy so I would pick a side.