Tutor Icon  Request A Tutor
|

Facebook and the Platform Monopoly

This blog was based on the following article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/nationalise-google-facebook-amazon-data-monopoly-platform-public-interest
Whilst reading the article is not required for understanding the blog, it will help further an appreciation of the key arguments. The blog itself is fairly detailed, so I will include periodic recap sections to help readers keep up. I have also written under the assumption the reader will be a Facebook user. Apologies if this is not the case.
Why are we discussing this?
In Economics we study the allocation of resources. Facebook can therefore be seen as highly relevant, for two simple reasons. Firstly, it is a gargantuan company making a huge sum of money (a fundamental resource), and exploring how it achieves this is a perfect means to apply some basic microeconomic theory. Secondly, for many people Facebook has become a common way to spend time (which is of course an even more fundamental resource, and is much more important to spend wisely!), which allows us to explore some very interesting avenues concerning how it makes its money.
For now, just remember that Facebook involves a firm making one resource (money) and individuals spending a different resource (time). Exploring the relationship between these two facts with basic economic principles is the central point of this blog.
Now, let’s assume you’ve at least read the title of the above article. As a Guardian article on nationalisation doesn’t exactly scream ideological neutrality, it’s important to remember that we are not here to either support or refute the political views implied in the article, we are focusing solely on Economic analysis.
So, what’s up with Facebook?
Whilst the article mentions several giant companies, I’m going to focus on Facebook. The basic premise is that data-based companies such as Facebook are amassing a large amount of market power; what this means in simple terms is that firms that rely on generating large amounts of computer data are becoming very dominant in their respective markets (e.g. Google).
This dominance of a market is referred to as monopoly power, and is viewed by economists as sub-optimal (bad) because monopolies can use their power to charge a higher price than the free market equilibrium (the price that would be achieved if buyers and sellers had equal power). This in turn means the market would not clear at the equilibrium price, and as a result the optimal allocation of resources is not achieved. The only winner is the producer, who makes extra profits through charging a higher price.

If these terms are relatively new to you, just think that (theoretically speaking) when a market is not competitive (i.e. buyers or sellers have too much power), there will not be as much benefit from production of goods and services within that market as there would be if the market was competitive. In a competitive market, a sort of ideal (referred to as equilibrium) price in terms of benefitting society is reached.
Let’s recap these basic points:
1. Facebook is a monopoly
2. Monopoly is bad for markets
But there are many monopoly firms. Why are we so focused on Facebook?
Now we get to the interesting part. The expressed idea is that Facebook effectively represents a new kind of monopoly, referred to as a ‘platform monopoly’ by the article. This refers to the idea that its power arises out of the way it provides a ‘platform’ for users to interact through. I think, based on my own knowledge and information from the article, there are a couple of very important ways this can be said to be true.
Firstly, Facebook is reliant on users, as pointed out in the article. This is perhaps like any other business, but the global reach of the internet and the prevalence of social media mean that once a single company can get enough users it acquires an extraordinary amount of power compared to pre-internet firms. Think about this. As the good Facebook sells is not actually sold to the users (more on that in the second point), there is no risk of a cheaper alternative arising. In other words, because Facebook et al are free for you to use, you are unlikely to switch due to a cheaper alternative arising. Additionally, because it is a platform that connects users, you are unlikely to switch whilst the majority of users still choose Facebook. If you saw your friends all leaving, for example, this would give you the only real incentive to switch to a different company. However, the catch is of course that your friends are as unlikely to leave as you are! So, these features of a platform monopoly help Facebook maintain a huge degree of market power.
Secondly, the way the relationship between you and Facebook makes the company money is brilliant. Remember that the good you consume (using Facebook) is not what makes the company money, it is not sold to you. What makes the firm their dollar is that your use of the platform provides data to Facebook; what you like, who your friends are, what your behavioural profile is, to provide but a few examples1. This data is then sold to companies who want information on consumers, for example all the companies ever. This is Facebook’s actual key product: data. Data that is acquired from your use of the platform, data you provide for free, data that is sold on to the actual consumers (companies) for profit. The point here is that the users are different from the customers2. Facebook provides the platform (Facebook.com) for users (you) to create the product (data) that is sold to the customer (companies).
So, in essence, Facebook is a new kind of monopoly, in the sense that it is very difficult to dislodge from its position due to its huge number of users, and is using the data generated through this to make a lot of money. Both of these are obviously made possible by recent technological and social changes, hence the new tag of ‘platform monopoly’.
So, to recap this more complex set of points:
1. Facebook is certainly a monopoly
2. Regular monopoly is bad for markets
3. Platform monopoly with global market is probably worse
4. Platform monopoly with global market and a critical mass of users is probably worse
5. Platform monopoly with a global market, critical mass of users, and a product that is acquired from users for free (in their leisure time no less), is probably even worse
6. I don’t know where the world is heading anymore
Anyway…
We’ve established Facebook is a scary monopoly. Where does this leave us?
I’ll quote a paragraph directly from the article here, as I could not put it any better myself:
“These companies’ power over our reliance on data adds a further twist. Data is quickly becoming the 21st-century version of oil – a resource essential to the entire global economy, and the focus of intense struggle to control it. Platforms, as spaces in which two or more groups interact, provide what is in effect an oil rig for data. Every interaction on a platform becomes another data point that can be captured and fed into an algorithm. In this sense, platforms are the only business model built for a data-centric economy”
So, the problem is that this monopoly power may be the standard of the future; as the economy becomes more data-driven, platform companies that mine data may attain similar monopoly positions in other industries (the article mentions both manufacturing and agriculture for example). If you think back to our introduction as to why Economist’s view monopoly as bad, this is a scary proposition. Whilst I am simplifying massively here, for the purpose of both time and clarity, we would expect this to create a large issue because markets would be too uncompetitive to benefit society as much as they could. To draw this right back to the basic economic problem, we would not satisfy as many of societies wants with our scarce resources as we could be.
This isn’t even to mention the ethical and societal implications of the product being created here; data is basically information, and what is being produced and traded on a global scale is therefore information (on you, on me, on everyone!). There is a lot of room for abuse there, especially when such large companies have control of the data.
So how about that nationalisation then?
This whole discussion on platform monopoly power and its downsides brings us round to the article idea that these platforms should be nationalised (bought and run by the government). The three key reasons I see for this are as follows:
Firstly, to avoid the exploitation of data and possibly consumers by platform monopoly firms
Secondly to prevent these large monopolies swallowing up competitors (e.g. Facebook and Instagram/WhatsApp) and becoming even more powerful
Thirdly because AI developments on the horizon and things are just going to get more complicated thereafter!
The idea is that government control would prevent the first two problems and help control the third.
I think we’ve covered the article argument nicely thus far, we know why and how Facebook can be considered a new and special form of monopoly, and we know why this means nationalisation may be useful, but let us end, like all good Econ students, with some evaluation.
Questioning the notion of nationalisation
In a nutshell, I think the writer does a much better job of identifying the problem than justifying a solution. Consider the following arguments, which I have tried to contain within a paragraph as we might be expected to do in an exam.
Firstly, the author does not explore in much detail the actual reason for his answer of nationalisation; he justifies it simply by saying that we have approached monopolies in the past this way so we should do it again now. My issue with the argument (although one he briefly acknowledges) is that he himself highlights the fact that this is a new kind of monopoly problem emerging in a new kind of economy. Surely, therefore, we need new approaches rather than recycled old ones?!
Additionally, he does not consider that nationalisation can come with its own problems, which should be familiar on a basic level to most A2 students. For example, without the motive of making profit governments may not run Facebook as well as it run by a private company… in what can only be described as a severe loss of welfare for society (I am being a little sarcastic here). 
Furthermore, he fails to account for the fact that Facebook is a truly global company with more users than any country has citizens. Which country nationalises it? How can the UK government nationalise an American company that operates across the world? For the new data-based companies of the future, which countries ultimately have jurisdiction? An even simpler detail he has excluded is whether the government could even afford to buy Facebook! Either taxes would surely have to increase, or a lot of school/hospital budgets would have to be cut.
Finally, he points out that past candidates for nationalisation have been those that serve the common good. Health, education, railways and electricity for example, all have clear positive externalities (positive benefits to society). The government nationalises such industries to try and ensure that monopoly power doesn’t prevent enough education or healthcare being produced. My point is that with Facebook I’m not so sure this is the case. I don’t see the government spending billions to nationalise it so that we can continue talking to our buddies and posting holiday pics. Imagine the following for example:
MAN: Doctor, please help me, I’m in need of immediate surgery!
DOCTOR: Soooo… yeaaah… look friend, I’m really sorry but our surgery ward was closed recently. The hospital budget was cut so that the government could buy Facebook and prevent it using our data to control the illuminati. Or something.
MAN: But… my spleen is literally hanging out onto the floor.
DOCTOR: Yeah that’s a real shame. Hope you get that fixed. Can’t help you here I’m afraid, I’ve got a spin class in a few minutes as well. The important thing, in all of this woe, is that you can still complain about the NHS cuts to your Facebook friends, without worrying about how Facebook might abuse your data.
MAN: Cheers doc, other than the growing cavity in my chest I do feel much better now.
Whilst this is a rather silly example, it does hopefully serve to demonstrate that the government probably has more pressing concerns at this juncture in time. Arguably neither the benefits or costs Facebook might respectively bring or cause to society are large enough for intervention, unlike say healthcare.
Final words
So, whilst I do see the economic argument that Facebook and the like have a scary amount of power in the modern economy, I definitely do not agree with the overall article conclusion that nationalisation is the obvious answer to this. Partly this is because the economic analysis of nationalisation was not strong enough within the article.
However, I do think it is very important to question whether the data that Facebook generates is a good thing for society, and whether the government should indeed work to control or regulate the extraction of this data. I think the case is certain, whether you agree or disagree with the answer of nationalisation, that we need some very smart people thinking very hard about where we all go from here.
And of course, if you liked my blog, don’t forget to share it on Facebook!
Footnote links
1 https://labs.rs/en/facebook-algorithmic-factory-immaterial-labour-and-data-harvesting/
2 What does that make the users? Well, normally when individuals sacrifice their free time in order to make or achieve something that makes another party money, we call that a job. The beauty of the data-driven platform monopoly is that they have us all working for them, for free.

LETS STUDY FOR YOUR EXAM TOGETHER

 
Melodie Argi
Melodie Argi
08:14 18 Oct 19
Tavistock tutors is by far the best tutor agency is London. The tutor selection is of the highest quality. Handpicked from the British intellectual elite in all sorts of disciplines. The staff is wonderfully helpful as well as being extremely attentive to feedback.read more
Henry Smith
Henry Smith
22:27 17 Oct 19
I have been employed as a tutor with Tavistock Tutors for over 5 years. I tutor mathematics and also help people with job preparation for different career routes (cv, cover letter, interview preparation and online test prep). They are simply a wonderful team of individuals who work collectively and strive to deliver the best possible service to both clients and their tutors. They work doggedly to achieve results. They are particularly honest and their feedback to tutors on how to improve is tailored, concise and always highly constructive. Even after 5 yrs, they only put me forward as a tutor if they think I am the absolute best they can find otherwise they are honest with me and explain why I was not put forward. I think this transparency is a huge reason for their success and keeps the best tutors on their books for years. Their communication on what a client wants is also clinically precise and effective and the team go out of their way to provide potential interests/passions of the client to help the tutor prepare accordingly for the lessons and nurture that interaction. Simply the finest agency and I have tutored with some of the best. World-class tutors and utmost confidentiality with respect to their clientele. I cannot be happier to work for them, a dream job with a team whose capacity for kindness, empathy and boundless intellect never ceases to amaze me. Their work ethic inspires me to relentlessly push myself to be a better tutor with their encouragement and constructive feedback.read more
Albert Tam
Albert Tam
20:50 17 Oct 19
Best tutors in London! Great experience and amazing customer service. Highly recommend, my tutors were all fantastic and a huge help. Really recommend Tavistock Tutors as I never had to worry about not getting the highest quality tutors unlike other agencies and online tutors.read more
I ME
I ME
16:13 17 Oct 19
I’ve used Tavistock multiple times and they never disappoint! I used them for myself secondary school, whilst at university and even now whilst working. Their service is second to none as are their tutors. I highly recommend them to anyone looking to better themselves academically or personally.read more
STAVROS MOUSLOPOULOS
STAVROS MOUSLOPOULOS
13:22 06 Oct 19
Why most reviewers have one contribution, namely to the Tavistock Tutors? High standards ? Mate get a real job rather than living off other's qualifications. Reality Check (See photos attached - that is the owner “looking for me” 1.5 years after leaving London and while my name and photo was on first page of Tavistock Tutor website...)read more
Jonathan Aaron
Jonathan Aaron
16:39 01 Aug 19
Amazing experience, the tutor was reliable, knowledgeable and reasonably priced and the company was both professional and reliable. Definitely will be using them again!read more
David T
David T
16:34 01 Aug 19
I used Tavistock for some Corporate Finance and Financial Modelling training at my firm. They were extremely helpful and the trainer, Simon, was of top quality, experience and charged a fair price. Thank you!read more
Olivia Pluss
Olivia Pluss
11:05 13 Jun 19
I had a fantastic experience with my tutor Elena and Tavistock Tutors. They were very well organized and made the entire experience so seamless and easy for me. I passed my assignment with great marks and the experience was much less stressful than if I had tried to complete the assignment without Elena's help.read more
J Mathews
J Mathews
11:27 22 May 19
My child used Glenda for HL biology. Glenda was outstanding. I would not hesitate to recommend her. Extremely intelligent, always prepared, knows how to teach/very helpful, and also just a nice person. Also, I would use Tavistock again for sure because we had such success with Glenda.read more
Alan Radford
Alan Radford
09:34 09 May 19
Tavistock Tutors were a delight to deal with, and highly professional at all times. They provided my daughter with an excellent tutor at very short notice - after my having approached them on a Thursday urgently requesting a tutor for that weekend. Tavistock Tutors immediately gave the matter their attention; they appreciated the urgency and responded quickly and efficiently, and helped to set my daughter up with exactly the right sort of tutor. Fantastic!read more
Sophie Taieb
Sophie Taieb
12:55 29 Mar 19
Very happy with Tavistock tutors services. They provide a wide range of tutors, from all backgrounds and for all types of needs. My uni son needed some help in research and methodology. We found a perfectly suited tutor in less than 3 days. He is very knowledgeable, punctual, open minded and brings the support needed to my son. I would definitely recommend Tavistock tutorsread more
Next Reviews
 

How to memorise quotes – (great for closed book exams!)

Memorising quotes can be a crucial element to your GCSE and A-level exams, so mastering the skill can be essential. Being able to use quotes in your written responses is a sure way to get marks fo...

How to choose quotes to learn for English GCSE

We know that learning quotes for a closed-book exam can be daunting, difficult and boring – especially when you’ve already been studying the text for an entire year. In our article ‘Do I need ...

Do I need to memorise quotes for English GCSE?

With the new GCSE specifications released in 2015, most English Literature GCSE exams have now become closed-book exams.

But what does this mean?

This means that in your exam, you won...

Call Now Button