Let's dig in on the substance of this claim. I think @matthewstoller is wrong here, interoperability will "work" with or without break-ups. It doesn't solve every problem tho. These are different tools that accomplish different goals, both important. Here's how they interact: 1/6
https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1370054838776705027
Interoperability opens up networks so the network effects are no longer locking users in to the incumbent network. That means competitors to Facebook will be more appealing to users because they can still communicate with their friends. 2/6
That's a huge benefit, even if we can't get FB broken up. Interoperability will make it much easier to compete against Facebook. Requiring it by law will give confidence to entrepreneurs & investors to start a product that actually competes against FB, not just try to get bought.
On top of interoperability, we could jumpstart competition with big divestitures from Facebook, a break-up. A break-up would provide built in guaranteed competitors, if we worried that insufficient competition would enter the market with interoperability alone. 4/6
If we do get a break-up, interoperability becomes particularly important for network industries like Facebook. Without interop, I think it's likely that a monopoly would re-form in social networking. If we leave those network effects in place they'll work to promote monopoly. 5/6
So interoperability and break-ups are both important tools. Interoperability is needed whether we get break-ups or not, but break-up could jumpstart competition that interoperability makes possible. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
