> It would be difficult to prove that Facebook has a monopoly on social media, there are many alternatives.
There are also many alternatives to Google.
Except to the webmasters, since Google brings in 95-98% of a website's traffic.
> they definitely don't have more than 50% of the ad revenue on the internet
I don't see why you're injecting ad revenue into this.
> As a person who consumes Facebook's services for free you really have no leg to stand on as to what Facebook is legally obligated to provide you for free.
I have stated nothing of the sort.
> How can you argue that kicking people off Facebook is a monopolistic practice
I have not stated nor argued anything of the sort.
What I have stated is that after you get to a certain size and market share (monopoly) where you begin to effect the lives and welfare of people, society, and businesses, "public good" rules begin to apply to you (or should be applied to you).
No one is asking for free services. What we are asking for is fare treatment and fare processes.
There are also many alternatives to Google.
Except to the webmasters, since Google brings in 95-98% of a website's traffic.
> they definitely don't have more than 50% of the ad revenue on the internet
I don't see why you're injecting ad revenue into this.
> As a person who consumes Facebook's services for free you really have no leg to stand on as to what Facebook is legally obligated to provide you for free.
I have stated nothing of the sort.
> How can you argue that kicking people off Facebook is a monopolistic practice
I have not stated nor argued anything of the sort.
What I have stated is that after you get to a certain size and market share (monopoly) where you begin to effect the lives and welfare of people, society, and businesses, "public good" rules begin to apply to you (or should be applied to you).
No one is asking for free services. What we are asking for is fare treatment and fare processes.