They have nearly 1/4 of the PLANET

It is debatable, a debate you would lose to a lot of millenials.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... nage-users

"This year more than 3 million under-25s in the UK and US will either quit Facebook or stop using it regularly, and they are pretty vocal about why."

Georgia Davey, 21, predicts a bleak future for the increasingly uncool Facebook. “I don’t know if I should say this, but I think Facebook might shut down one day,” she says. “There will be a new thing soon and no one will be on it any more.”

“As soon as the parents got in, they killed it,” Jordan says. He no longer has the Facebook app. “I mainly pay attention to what my older sisters are doing or keeping track of things that are funny … I deleted my mum as a friend on Facebook because she was just jarring.”

“I don’t use Facebook any more because none of my friends use it, so there’s no point,” says Viktoria. Alina says she uses Snapchat rather than Facebook but doesn’t think Facebook is full of old people, just “more middle-aged people, like in their 30s and 40s”. The two girls mainly use Snapchat “for everything, messaging, pictures … and WhatsApp for groups from school, to talk about topics we did and projects”.

Here is another one...

https://www.thestar.com/business/tech_n ... pchat.html

Three years ago, Facebook was the dominant social media site among U.S. teens, visited by 71 per cent of people in that magic, trendsetting demographic. Not anymore.

Now, only 51 per cent of kids between 13 and 17 use Facebook, according to Pew Research Center. The world’s largest social network has finally been eclipsed in popularity by YouTube, Snapchat and Facebook-owned Instagram.

The social media environment today revolves less around a single platform than it did three years ago,” the researchers wrote in a survey published Thursday. Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube is the most popular, used by 85 per cent of teens, according to Pew.

The U.S. is by far Facebook’s most lucrative advertising market, where it makes a staggering $23.59 (U.S.) in quarterly revenue per user. But that doesn’t mean growth can continue forever. The company said in its most recent earnings call that it’s effectively saturated the market in America and Canada, counting 185 million users in those two countries combined.

The new study demonstrates how difficult it may be to keep up that level of dominance, and how important the 2012 Instagram acquisition has been for Facebook’s future.

3 million?!?? I stand corrected. That's a HUGE number when you have 2.2 BILLION users worldwide.[sarcafont]. I don't know if that's even including Instagram (which, by the way, is what monopolies do - buy up the competition).

Facebook as a monopoly, as a social necessity, isn't about only the facebook website, but the entire platform and network of companies run by the Facebook corporation. You quote an article that talks about an "exodus" of users to another company....owned by Facebook. If there were an actual debate here, you'd be losing it.

Google and Facebook dominate social media. But that's not a monopoly! Misses the point

3 million is pretty huge number when the loses are from a key demographic of 50 millions users (users under the age of 25 from U.S. and UK)

So yeah, a 6% decline in users from the up and coming generation is pretty significant. That is the same generation that you said "Facebook is the social hub for millenials and younger. I don't see how that's debatable" And no, they aren't all going to Instagram. Snapchat has more under age 25 users than Instagram. We can quibble over what constitutes a monopoly or not. I believe there are many options for a person that chooses to engage in social media. I understand your definition of a monopoly might not align with mine. That was not really my point. My point is that facebook is hardly a necessity and is bleeding users in the youngest demographics to cooler and hipper entrants. The choices aren't participate in facebook or be a recluse.

But the article YOU posted said most are going to Instagram, which is owned by Facebook. Again, you don't seem to understand what a monopoly is or how it operates.

Keep harping on Facebook, the site, when I've said multiple times it's about Facebook THE CORPORATION. But, again, LOL about 3M users when Facebook has over 2 BILLION accounts.

I think you are the one that doesn't understand what a monopoly is. 2 Billion accounts doesn't make Facebook anything other than a company with a lot of accounts. So long as those users have other choices they aren't a monopoly. And you are wrong.. the article I posted did not say MOST are going to Instagram. It said MANY are going to Instagram. Those two words make a big difference. The fact is more millenials are choosing Snapschat than Instagram.

Less than half of U.S. Internet users ages 12 to 17 will use Facebook this year for the first time, the research firm says.

And the giant social network can no longer count on Instagram to help retain that younger audience, according to eMarketer.

Facebook will lose 2 million users under 25 this year, eMarketer estimates. Not all of those users are migrating to Instagram, also owned by Facebook.

Instagram will add 1.6 million users in that age group while Snapchat will add 1.9 million users, according to eMarketer. The research firm, which bases its analysis on survey and traffic data from research firms and regulatory agencies, Facebook press releases, historical trends, Internet and mobile trends and other factors, says Snapchat will continue to have more users ages 12 to 24 than Instagram.

Facebook declined to comment.

This is just the latest in a growing body of research that suggests young people are logging in less frequently and spending less time on Facebook. What's more: There are now "Facebook nevers," children becoming tweens who are skipping Facebook altogether. Facebook requires members to be 13 to sign up, though many kids under that age access social media by having their parents start their account.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/201 ... 323765002/

Monopoly is a decision based on market share. 40% of the ENTIRE planet. End of discussion. This is laughable if you remember the Netscape days...

I have a masters in economics. You're welcome to show me your ignorance, if you wish to continue this bullshit.


Pro tip: In the future....don't write and post things that destroys the point you're pretending to make

If a Monopoly is determined by market share please tell me what the percentage of a market share is that determines a monopoly. You can't because you are wrong. This is pulled straight from the justice department website

Modern decisions consistently hold, however, that proof of monopoly power requires more than a dominant market share.

Not only can you not define a monopoly, but you are botching what actual market share is. You are confusing reach with market share. How many of those 2 billion monthly facebook users also use other social media platforms? I'd say most. In the U.S. the average social media user is active on close to 4 platforms. How many of those 2 billion users would even consider Facebook their primary social media app? There are a lot of "light" facebook users. Coca-cola sells 1.9 billion beverages per day. I'm sure they surpass 2 billion monthly individual drinkers of coke products. Is that what defines their market share (the answer is no). Are they a monopoly because half of the world has tried a coke?

Pro-tip: College degrees you get from a cracker-jack box aren't real.

I appeal to Thomas Aquinas who writes in the Sumna that, as Boethius says, proof from authority is the weakest form of proof.

thanks for posting that. It’s great entertainment to watch people Inflate themselves. The hubris and lack of humility is funny.

But...Isn't that proof from authority???

An appeal to an authority based on an appeal to a authority. A fortiori.

I simply must assume that our dear Zeke realizes the joke.

joke? I didn’t read it like that at all. But carry on with your apology tour.

No apology.

It was definitely a barb, but also a joke because I appealed to an authority (Thomas) who appeals to an authority (Boethius) to claim that an appeal to authority is the weakest sort of proof.

I don’t see any issue with appealing to an authority. It is the self appeal that is weak.

Bingo. Kudos.

Indeed. Too good of a joke / tweak to pass up

You are pretty humorless.

This whole page of an otherwise humorless discussion has actually been quite humorous.