| ▲ | charcircuit 6 days ago |
| The market is being unfairly defined based on how things worked decades ago instead of looking at the modern landscape. Tech evolved rapidly and the way things worked decades ago may not be optimal for the end user as things change. |
|
| ▲ | bdcravens 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| You're right, but probably not in the way you think. This probably calls for even stronger consumer protections, since the natural limit of human scalability created something of a limitation as to how large and dominant a company could be. |
|
| ▲ | seydor 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > how things worked decades ago you mean, before monopolies? |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Everything is a monopoly if you limit the market enough. | | |
| ▲ | bdcravens 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Monopolies in and of themselves aren't a problem, and aren't illegal. Unfair leverage to prevent competition is. | | |
| ▲ | CPLX 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not correct and a common misconception, on both sides of the argument. Both monopolies and monopolistic actions are illegal, each alone is enough to be in violation of the law. | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The existence of competition doesn't always make things better. For example forcing middlemen to exist so that there is competition can lead to a worse situation than without middlemen. Direct to consumer is unfair leverage to middlemen, but it can be better for consumers. | | |
|
|
|
