←back to thread

1525 points saeedesmaili | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.234s | source
Show context
bloak ◴[] No.43653178[source]
This sounds like an economic problem with no obvious solution: network effects => monopoly => "optimising" for typical user. Where there isn't a monopoly (or anything close to a monopoly) you find different firms specialising in different ways. For example, small independent restaurants survive by being distinctive, not by trying to imitate McDonald's.

YouTube and LinkedIn are practically monopolies. Netflix isn't a monopoly in the same way but you usually don't have a choice of streaming services for watching a particular film or series so it's different from being able to buy the same cheese or the same wine from any of several different supermarkets.

replies(2): >>43653210 #>>43653813 #
1. cratermoon ◴[] No.43653813[source]
> no obvious solution: network effects => monopoly => "optimising" for typical user.

ahem. We have a solution for the monopoly part. We've had it since the 19th century. We just stopped enforcing it in the 70s and 80s when the Chicago School convinced everyone that as long as judge Robert Bork's "consumer welfare" can be trotted out to prove that the "free market" is working and prices are low.