Tag Archives: facebook

The Gang of Four: Do they mean well?

Leave a reply

As a person who can find the positive in all sides, I am indecisive in the debate of whether these big platforms are helping bring people together or forcing us to communicate less.

“At a very high level, platforms simply allow people to reach and connect with one another” (22). I understand this quote, and I can apply it to a platform like Facebook in a positive light, that it has allowed for international communication that could otherwise not be possible. I can connect with people that I met in Europe very easily. People with the same last name as I that live in Italy have reached out to me in the past in efforts to communicate. While this is all well and good, it has equally provided a source of miscommunication as people check their Facebooks via their smartphones while in the physical company of other humans, aimlessly scrolling through their newsfeed, refraining from indulging in conversation or other humanly interactions.

The reading discussed using ‘can’ versus ‘must’ when talking about the usage of these platforms, which I found interesting to think about. Consumers have the choice to use these platforms, they are not forced into them.. but are we? I recently just read the post by a peer that the Textbook annex is being forced out and is automatically signing students up for Amazon Prime. Some media classes force us to use big platforms (Twitter). I can foresee that even resumes will become void as more and more companies rely on LinkedIn. So I think in a way we are subconsciously being forced into these platforms. Yes, we do have the choice to use them and I know people without Facebook, but they are not completely unplugged from the gang of four. One of these platforms is utilized. Also we are just taught that this is the easiest way of doing things. The idea of the negative and dangerous effects are not learned or discussed, so I do not think we really are given a choice to refrain from using them.

“We consumers don’t have to buy anything on Amazon, much less everything” (28).

My thoughts on monopolies:

“The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a monopoly as ‘the exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action” (30).

Market dominance and product process dominance is where I feel uncomfortable. I think dominance is the key word here, I’m not the biggest fan of any sort of dominance applied to mostly anything.

I know the reading explains that platforms are not monopolies given pricing power, competition factors, elastic demand, etc. That platforms are not aiming to become monopolies, but I still do not agree with a soul company eating up other other companies by buying them out. This means that they control so much of the cash flows of the economy and that doesn’t sit right with me. It’s economically unsustainable and makes the gang of four too powerful in that sense. It makes me feel like consumers no longer even have a choice of where they are investing their money.

I guess what it comes down to is the unsettling feeling of not wanting the world to completely switch over to a virtual world despite the convenience. Nothing ever translates well through text and virtual communication. Emotion is somewhat lost and I think that is an important piece to humanity. So while Amazon and platforms like it are pushing out bookstores, society will continue to lose out on human interaction and build stronger and stronger relationships with their technology screens and website faces.

The Monopolization of Internet Platforms

Leave a reply

Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed a reoccurring idea coming up in class. That idea is the monopolization of the internet. Platforms are used to connect people, and in today’s world, technological platforms are on the rise. Technological platforms are those that don’t require physical presence to connect people, and that includes the internet.

There are most definitely powerhouses in the platforms of the internet that relay the idea of a monopoly. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, YouTube, and Pandora/Spotify are among the most prominent. Now, a lot of the time,  the monopolization of the internet is treated as a negative, but I feel like it’s very much the opposite. The monopolization of the internet is something that helps move it forward.

Now at first that may sound absurd. Monopolization can be seen as hindering the growth of smaller entities, and possibly stunting development. But with the internet, I feel it’s different. With the internet, things come and go, take memes for instance. The same holds for monopolies. Look at MySpace, Limewire, Yahoo, AIM, and others. They used to be considered the biggest platforms in what they did. But now they’ve bowed out, and moved over for the new top dogs.

Looking at it, internet platform monopolization isn’t necessarily a bad thing. All these new big names had some improvement over their predecessor. The old apps becoming the biggest name of their platforms put them in the spotlight. This allowed people to be shown what was good about the current era, and what needed improvement. The next monopoly takes that information and improves on it. People often say that Facebook was a massive improvement over MySpace, and Google’s results are generally better than Yahoo’s.

Now to some, monopolies like this are bad, as they don’t feel they promote new ideas and improvement. Maybe it sounds like I’m saying that “I for one welcome our new overlords” in some regard but I honestly feel like these waves have their benefits. “Out with the old, in with the new” as the saying goes. I feel that saying fits this trend very well. It’s the nature of the internet to grow and improve and I feel that the monopolies have played a part in that.