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

[variant]

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.

To have a monopoly isn't to have competition, they are antithetical ideas.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

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.....

It is better to oppress and discriminate against people that the Holy Bible says are "Yucky", Not the most popular Political Party of all time.

 

[Tanj]

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.

Firstly, I wish. It would be like all my Christmases come at once for twitter and facebook to disappear from the planet. However....

None of that is going to happen. These companies will sail on and barely notice a blip.

Extremist political positions and discussions thereof are a tiny minority of the traffic these sites have. The vast majority of twitter and facebook is given over to what people had for lunch or who they are dating, and AWS is a dominant player in the SAAS and HAAS markets for which the shutdown of one social media site barely rates a mention, and wont impact their bottom line by any number that doesn't start with 0.000000

 

[A2SG]

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

True enough, but while a business that's open to the public cannot refuse service to an entire specific class of people, they certainly they can refuse to serve individuals. Especially individuals who don't follow the rules the business sets forth, eg "no shoes, no shirt, no service."

I don't see the difference here.

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.

As I understand it, it wasn't "taken down" so much, as other sites refused to provide the app for download. Probably due to potential legal liabilities making it difficult to support, at least from what I've heard. Still, isn't that pretty much the same as a store that doesn't like a particular magazine, choosing not to sell it. Again, the free market in action.

Don't you like capitalism any more?

-- A2SG, seems you were all for it before the invisible hand didn't do what you wanted it to.....

 

[A2SG]

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.

True enough. But he can refuse service to individuals, especially individuals who don't follow the rules of his store, eg "no shoes, no shirt, no service." That seems the salient parallel to people like Trump being denied service by Twitter, et al.

And isn't that just the free market at work? I always thought conservatives liked the free market.

-- A2SG, I guess they only like it when it works in their favor, otherwise, it's so unfair....

 

[lasthero]

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.
.

It is amazing how this simple fact escapes some people.

Places like Parler might get some popularity and do relatively well, but as long as they only appeal to one group in one country, they will never take a significant chunk of Twitter or YouTube or anything. It’s like Cookout vs McDonalds.

 

[Pommer]

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.

How is exercising their 1st Amendment Rights “political abuses”?

 

[Gene2memE]

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.

They're not rejecting 50% of their customers.

Even in the US, "conservatives" are a minority. And "outspoken conservatives" are a minority of that minority. And Twitter, Facebook et al aren't limiting/restricting all 'outspoken conservatives', just those who violate their ToS in an egregious or obvious manner. And even then, the social media companies are more likely than not to act.

So, they're rejecting a minority, of a minority, of a minority, of a minority of their customers.

Lets do some math:

Per Gallup, the proportion of the ~205 million US adults who identify their political views as 'conservative' bounces between 33% and 40% (based on polling since 1992), averaging 36% between 2015 and 2020 (The proportion who identify as affiliating with the Republican party is even smaller, at somewhere between 20% and 28% of the adult population).

So that's an upper bound of ~82 million adults, and a lower bound of ~41 million.

Twitter had roughly 321 million users globally (based on the number of active users who tweet per day) in October 2020. Of these, 68.1 million are from accounts in the US - or about 21% of its user base.

So, given that roughly 36% the US views itself as "conservative", then there's a maximum of 24.5 million Twitter users who would identify as such. At a maximum, that's just 7.5% of Twitter's user base.

How many of those are "outspoken conservatives" using Twitter? I don't know. However, I'd suggest that those who do identify as such are a fraction of those who identify as conservative.

Democrats and politically non-affiliated adults, as well as young people, are also more likely (between 10% and 33% depending on demographic) to use social media than those who identify as either Republican or conservative. They're also more likely to be politically active on social media (up to 65% more likely in some demographics). This skews the numbers even further.

I'd argue that "outspoken conservatives" make up no more than 1% of Twitter's user base, and in all probability a much, much smaller fraction than that. I suspect that it could lose all of its "outspoken conservatives" and barely notice.

Facebook is a similar story, even though its users tend to be older and skew further right politically than the US norm. North America (US & Canada) totals 255 million Facebook accounts, of 2700 million users. This means that the US conservative user base of Facebook well under 5% of total accounts.

 

[FireDragon76]

Trump loyalists are in no way 50 percent of Twitter or Facebook's audience.

People need to get out of their right wing American bubble.

 

[FireDragon76]

True enough. But he can refuse service to individuals, especially individuals who don't follow the rules of his store, eg "no shoes, no shirt, no service." That seems the salient parallel to people like Trump being denied service by Twitter, et al.

And isn't that just the free market at work? I always thought conservatives liked the free market.

-- A2SG, I guess they only like it when it works in their favor, otherwise, it's so unfair....

They need to check their privilege. They are used to society catering to their whims for decades and now people have moved on, society changes. Just because you are a white, male, Christian xenophobe doesn't mean your opinion needs to be platformed by companies that have to do business with a wider audience.

 

[A2SG]

They need to check their privilege. They are used to society catering to their whims for decades and now people have moved on, society changes. Just because you are a white, male, Christian xenophobe doesn't mean your opinion needs to be platformed by companies that have to do business with a wider audience.

And the irony here is, this is a perfect example of exactly the kind of free-market capitalism conservatives fight for all the time.

-- A2SG, just gotta watch where the invisible hand points.....

 

[FireDragon76]

And the irony here is, this is a perfect example of exactly the kind of free-market capitalism conservatives fight for all the time.

-- A2SG, just gotta watch where the invisible hand points.....

Exactly. Businesses generally like to steer clear of controversy and they want a wide consumer base. This is as close to a "free market" decision as you are going to get.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

They just have to pretend that their religion says they have to. Maybe Twitter just needs to say that God told them to kick off users who don't follow the rules and conservatives will come around?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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.

The Trumpist death cult is not anywhere near 50% of their customer base. Anyone who doesn't want to get banned off their platforms should consider *not* violating their ToS.

Don't worry, though. There's always 4chan.

 

[Freodin]

I'm not sure if I said it before here or elsewhere, but I know I did say it before:

Google, Apple and Amazon should have announced that they won't do business anymore with certain people for religious reasons.

Isn't there one corporation left that could be convinced to do that?

The implosion of the "religious liberty" loving right-wingers would be awesome to watch.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm not sure if I said it before here or elsewhere, but I know I did say it before:

Google, Apple and Amazon should have announced that they won't do business anymore with certain people for religious reasons.

Isn't there one corporation left that could be convinced to do that?

The implosion of the "religious liberty" loving right-wingers would be awesome to watch.

"No no no...we meant free market and religious liberty for us, not everyone."