> The analogy is flawed. Saying there are no monopoly issues as long as there are at least two competitors is even more flawed.
There are significantly more than two companies that allow mass communication over the internet. In fact, there are a significant number of perfectly free and open ways to communicate over the internet.
Why is Twitter special?
> If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms). How successful will such movies be?
Sorta my point, because that happens all the time. No one goes around saying theater chains are monopolies and need to show every movie anyone deigns to have projected on a screen.
> Should we be concerned that the cinema chains can decide what sort of movies can be made or have any sort of impact?
Maybe, but that isn't legal standing for doing anything. If you don't like it, boycott theaters, tell your friends not to go to them, promote alternatives that deliver what you want.
Oh, but then the market might disagree with you and keep going to the theaters anyway. Well tough. You're not entitled to force people to care.
Alternatively, push for legislation around online communication platforms and how they are allowed to determine who can and cannot speak on them. But then don't be surprised when those rules apply to your mailing list too.
There are significantly more than two companies that allow mass communication over the internet. In fact, there are a significant number of perfectly free and open ways to communicate over the internet.
Why is Twitter special?
> If major cinema chains (Twitter, Facebook..) refuse to show a movie, but you can still rent the back of Moe's bar (and thousands bars like it) and use their second-hand projector (an analogy for the small audience of alternative platforms). How successful will such movies be?
Sorta my point, because that happens all the time. No one goes around saying theater chains are monopolies and need to show every movie anyone deigns to have projected on a screen.
> Should we be concerned that the cinema chains can decide what sort of movies can be made or have any sort of impact?
Maybe, but that isn't legal standing for doing anything. If you don't like it, boycott theaters, tell your friends not to go to them, promote alternatives that deliver what you want.
Oh, but then the market might disagree with you and keep going to the theaters anyway. Well tough. You're not entitled to force people to care.
Alternatively, push for legislation around online communication platforms and how they are allowed to determine who can and cannot speak on them. But then don't be surprised when those rules apply to your mailing list too.