e-Monopoly
Is Facebook monopoly?
A good way to make a judgment on monopoly is to see if the power is in the users’ hand or in the seller’s hand.
If you don’t buy ice cream from one shop, you can buy one from another one. Does the same apply to social network website service. Not really. Say if you have been using facebook to socialise with your friends and associates.
One day, you account is not there. Can you say, “oh well I can always use myspace”? Obviously not, there is no option for you to migrate you social network from facebook to myspace, meaning you lose everything valuable in facebook. So clearly, they have the monopoly power although this new e-monopoly is presented in a different way form monopoly in traditional business environment.
If there is a anti-trust case against e-monopoly, what would be the solution?
- Porting. There is not yet any protocol to connect Facebook with other social network websites, so if you leave one you lose all your social networks in that service. You should have the option to migrate your social network from one service to another without interruption. This should be legally guaranteed regardless if the service providers like it or not.
- Open source. Some may have mistaken Facebook as an open environment. It’s not. There are part of it open only for third party company to develop plugins. Social network service should be required to open at least part of its source codes to ensure porting. In addiction to this minimum requirement, service providers should be encouraged to have a bigger part or the entire source code open, so they can focus on providing better service rather than taking advantage users’ fear that they have to rebuild their social network if they leave one service provider for another.
- Legal protection for users. The only reason that “The end justifies the means” policy works for Facebook is that there is no effective regulation to prevent its use.
The first two can lead to e-competition instead of e-monopoly. If the social networks in facebook are interconnected with myspace and other social network sites, or competing sites are allowed to develop to share the same social network in facebook (with the users’ permission), then users would have the choice to pick a service they like without losing their social network. In other words, the power is returned to users’ hand.That’s the future of the network society.
As long as e-monopoly exists, online social network is still in its infancy regardless how popular one or two particular services providers may seem.
The third one is only a temporary solution. It merely limit the impact of e-monopoly power on users, not a real solution. The solution is to build an open environment to encourage e-competition.
