If Meta Is A ‘Monopoly,’ Why Is Mark Zuckerberg Offering ‘Big Bucks’?
The post If Meta Is A ‘Monopoly,’ Why Is Mark Zuckerberg Offering ‘Big Bucks’? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 31: Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary … More Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony from the heads of the largest tech firms on the dangers of child sexual exploitation on social media. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Getty Images Business monopolies don’t need to compete. Why should they compete when they’re already monopolies? It’s a question worth asking in consideration of the FTC’s lawsuit against Meta, one that accuses it of having acquired monopoly dominance of the social media market through its past acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The seemingly obvious reply to the FTC is what an odd lawsuit considering the myriad internet locales to access, including social media giants like YouTube and TikTok that Meta does not own. Which is the initial point. No doubt Facebook itself is the most visited of the various social media sites, but its very ubiquity ensured more competition for eyeballs. This included the arrival of YouTube and TikTok, along with former unknowns like Instagram and WhatsApp. Far from a monopolistic move, Facebook’s acquisition of both was an admission that tomorrow in business is another century. For Facebook to have sat idle, enjoying the ubiquity of – yes – Facebook, it would have set itself up for obsolescence. Notable about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his operation of what is now Meta, the name change itself is evidence that there are no monopolies in business sectors defined by dynamism, but there are formerly great businesses that are formerly great because they didn’t evolve. In other words, Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp weren’t monopolistic simply because so-called “monopolies” don’t sell for $1 billion and $19 billion in the world’s most competitive, dynamic…
The post If Meta Is A ‘Monopoly,’ Why Is Mark Zuckerberg Offering ‘Big Bucks’? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com.
WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 31: Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta testifies before the Senate Judiciary … More Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony from the heads of the largest tech firms on the dangers of child sexual exploitation on social media. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Getty Images Business monopolies don’t need to compete. Why should they compete when they’re already monopolies? It’s a question worth asking in consideration of the FTC’s lawsuit against Meta, one that accuses it of having acquired monopoly dominance of the social media market through its past acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The seemingly obvious reply to the FTC is what an odd lawsuit considering the myriad internet locales to access, including social media giants like YouTube and TikTok that Meta does not own. Which is the initial point. No doubt Facebook itself is the most visited of the various social media sites, but its very ubiquity ensured more competition for eyeballs. This included the arrival of YouTube and TikTok, along with former unknowns like Instagram and WhatsApp. Far from a monopolistic move, Facebook’s acquisition of both was an admission that tomorrow in business is another century. For Facebook to have sat idle, enjoying the ubiquity of – yes – Facebook, it would have set itself up for obsolescence. Notable about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his operation of what is now Meta, the name change itself is evidence that there are no monopolies in business sectors defined by dynamism, but there are formerly great businesses that are formerly great because they didn’t evolve. In other words, Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp weren’t monopolistic simply because so-called “monopolies” don’t sell for $1 billion and $19 billion in the world’s most competitive, dynamic…
What's Your Reaction?
