Question A: Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter operate as monopolies within their specific content area.
Question A: Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter operate as monopolies within their specific content area.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Agree | 8 | Most of the disagreement here is about how different economists define "monopoly". We can all agree that these companies have considerable monopoly power which gives them vastly more influence over global society than any small businesses and generates much higher profit margins than the average small business. But literalists define "monopoly" as a single-seller without competition and these platforms do compete with each other more like an olygopoly. |
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Agree | 7 | |
| Glenn Dutcher | Ohio University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | There exist viable substitutes for these organizations' products/services. |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Agree | 10 | It was not efficient to allow the big 5 (Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft) to buy 519 other firms in the past decade. Of course these firms know it is better (for them) to buy than compete. However, I expect our anti-trust officials to know what is better for society--sufficient competition. Why was Facebook allowed to buy Instragram? Why was Alphabet allowed to buy Youtube? The list goes on and on for 517 other examples. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Agree | 8 | Each has extensive market power as it channels information within its content area and the accompanying network externalities accord each increasing market power. However, to remain an effective information channel within its content area, it has a responsibility to ensure that information on the platform is not harmful or illegal. |
| Hasan Faruq | Xavier University | Agree | 9 | |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Uncertain | 5 | Depends on how narrow/broad is the definition of "content area" |
| Paul Holmes | Ashland University | Disagree | 7 | I don't think 'monopoly' is the right concept. I do think they have substantial market power. But I think their market power is more fragile than is commonly believed. Re: the current proposed intervention, I trust Schumpeter's 'creative destruction' to diminish that market power more than I trust the government's ability to do so. |
| Faria Huq | Lake Erie College | Agree | 9 | |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Strongly Disagree | 8 | Monopolies are better defined by barriers to entry. TikTok has already surpassed Facebook as measured by app downloads. Consumers need to decide what platform to use, not governments. |
| Fadhel Kaboub | Denison University | Strongly Agree | 10 | Social media platforms are quasi-monopolies and should be regulated at the federal level via better anti-trust legislation and FCC regulations, but they do still have first amendment rights, and they must abide by regulations against hate speech and misinformation. Ohio's HB441 has a misleading and sloppy approach to an important issue. It has a narrow political motivation behind it, and it is likely to face a substantial legal challenge in court. |
| Charles Kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Agree | 5 | |
| Bethany Lemont | Ohio University | Agree | 1 | I’m interpreting this statement as “Facebook operates as a monopoly within the market for Facebook”. Sure, that’s true, but it’s kind of silly to declare. We don’t say that “McDonald’s has a monopoly in the market for McDonald’s.” That’s not how economists usually think about the scope of markets. The spirit of this question seems to be trying to ask if large social media platforms have too much market power in comparison to perfectly competitive markets. I would agree that the social media market is not perfectly competitive but there is not one company who is the sole supplier of social media. Therefore, I would not characterize it as a monopolistic market. Instead, I believe it falls more into the category of a monopolistically competitive market: there are large suppliers of the goods who are offering highly differentiated versions of social media to consumers. Because of this high degree of product differentiation, they still have a lot of “market power” within their respective offerings even though we wouldn’t call them pure monopolists. I think a lot of non-economists falsely believe that markets are either governed by a monopolistic supplier or they’re “competitive”. In reality, markets can fall anywhere along a spectrum from “perfectly competitive” to “monopolistic”. |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Uncertain | 7 | |
| Michael Myler | University of Mount Union | Disagree | 8 | A monopoly based on knowledge is likely to be short lived. You may have a monopoly this year, but you are certainly aware that a firm from outside your field--loaded with talent--is probably already developing technology that will let them break into your market. |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Strongly Agree | 9 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Agree | 8 | They certainly have a form of market power in the control of information (and ability to monetize it through adversing). |
| Cort Rodet | Ohio University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | By strict definition, these companies are not monopolies because their products clearly serve as substitutes for one another. Policy makers seem to be confounding two related but distinct issues related to tech and social media platforms. First, in terms of platforms for expressing opinion, options abound and are not limited to social media. One can write an op-ed, rent a billboard, share pamphlets, etc. But more seriously, there are outlets all over the internet where like-minded individuals congregate and share their thoughts - everything from DIY chat boards, hobby groups, and politically minded groups. Furthermore, the number of users on specific platforms fluctuates as preferences change. The most obvious example is the shift of younger users from Facebook to TikTok. If strict policies on opinion sharing turn off users, they can and will find a better outlet. For this reason, it appears that this legislation is motivated more by politics than by consumer welfare or free speech. The second issue related to these companies' size that has more merit but is unrelated to free speech is their ability to gather massive amounts of data in order to cater to customers through predictive analytics. The head start of Google, Meta, etc., on having existing data and the infrastructure to collect and use it has the potential to inhibit competition from startups. This is an issue unlike those typically dealt with in the antitrust arena and where policy makers ought to be focusing their inquiries. What are the tradeoffs from allowing tech companies to grow in the age of the 'internet of things'? Do the benefits to consumers from tailored goods and services outweigh the potential barriers to entry? However, this is not the underlying concern of this proposed legislation. |
| Lewis Sage | Baldwin Wallace University | Strongly Agree | 10 | |
| Dean Snyder | Antioch College | Strongly Agree | 8 | |
| Kay E. Strong | Independent | Strongly Disagree | 9 | Being a monopoly and having monopoly power are not the same. Big tech firms are better characterized as being oligopolies, an industry with significant barriers to entry and strategic interdependency between firms. All firms, irrespective of market type, exercise both competitive and monopoly power not unlike most big league sports. |
| Albert Sumell | Youngstown State University | Disagree | 8 | As evidenced by the decline of users on Facebook and the rapid increase of users on TikTok and Snapchat, there is a large amount of competition in this industry |
| Melissa Thomasson | Miami University | Disagree | 7 | |
| Thomas Traynor | Wright State University | Agree | 9 | |
| Ejindu Ume | Miami University | Uncertain | 7 | |
| Andy Welki | John Carroll University | Strongly Agree | 8 | |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Disagree | 3 | It seems the appropriate "industry" to think of is avenues for sharing one's viewpoint. In that context, no one platform is a monopoly. There are many social media platforms that a person could choose to use, and social media is not the only place to share one's viewpoint. |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Agree | 8 | But monopolies for ads not for users. For a party that claims to be about freedom, they sure want to restrict for companies that should have the right to moderate content. |