I confess I do not understand what is to be done here. These internet platforms are not utilities—the technology is not stable and investments are not large enough—so rate regulation would seem inappropriate. The economies of scale on the production side and the economies of scope on the consumption side are very large, and so it would seem inappropriate to sacrifice them to generate competition at the core services of each platform. Consumer surplus appears to be very large, so reducing the profits to successful innovators seems a very bad idea. And there is the question of whether these firms are giving their customers what they need instead of what they think they want—but do recall that in early generations one socialist critique of the market was that the market economy was making people unfree by failing to force them to wear identical blue overalls, drive identical utilitarian black cards, and listen to properly uplifting music:

Ben Thompson: Tech and Antitrust: "That is not to say that tech deserves no regulation: question of privacy, for example, are something else entirely. Nor, for that matter, is antitrust irrelevant in the United States generally: concentration has increased dramatically throughout the economy. What is driving that concentration matters, though: at the end of the day tech companies are powerful because consumers like them, not because they are the only option. Consumer welfare still matters, both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion...


#noted

Comments