Hacker News Reader

Comment by atoav | Hacker News Reader

One argument would be: Because beyond a certain size your service becomes a public platfrom and you are no longer competing with other platforms through your features, but through the fact that you have an existing userbase. So there is A) public interest in accessing, archiving, displaying, etc. the things users do on your platform and B) forcing your service to become more open the bigger it becomes keeps the competition of services going.

Edit: also see the relevant discourse in this other thread (especially that comment here): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686866

View on HN

So have other services, i.e. PornHub and the like, crossed your threshold of public service?

I've always viewed this argument as a very poor one. This essentially mandates that all very successful online enterprises become government arms. When does Instragram/Twitter/Facebook, once made a "public platform", become free of these new responsibilities? Is Twitter free to shut down tomorrow once they have public fiduciary responsibilities?

I'm all in favor of additional regulation to encourage/reward/enforce "openness", especially with respect to data originating from users (photos, ...). But saying these companies have any responsibility to the social good is pure foolishness.

If you read my comment again you will find that I did not communicate this as my argument on purpose. So please don't frame it as such. Discussing something without necessarily having to share that opinion is hopefully still possible.

Also: we are talking about Instagram, not about Pornhub — I guess the nature of the service would certainly play a role in that argument (e.g. think about messengers).

What I do think myself is that beyond a certain size platforms should have it harder, should be held to higher standards, should fulfill more requirements etc. Because naturally bigger platforms will have it easier than their smaller competitors and it is in our interest to balance this out. Whether APIs are part of this, I don't know. Haven't given it much thought.

> This essentially mandates that all very successful online enterprises become government arms.

It doesn't. You can always split up before you grow too large, and remain private.

There's precedent: once you're a monopoly, you have extra responsibilities to the social good, like splitting up or getting regulated.

Instagram has a monopoly on what exactly

It has dominant market share of photo-centric social platforms.

In some smaller communities, it is also has a monopoly on social media in general and instant messaging.

This is even more problematic, because such platforms have a positive feedback loop of user acquisition. Many users have no option but to use them, because all their contacts are using them.

The definition of a tiny specific monopoly within a niche is meaningless. If you had 30 different factors to describe exactly what each platform does then each of them would be a monopoly in themselves.

In any case Instagram is certainly not in a monopolistic position at the moment unless you try to twist the sense of words to fit a narrative.

Instagram has a monopoly said who exactly?

All companies have a responsibility to the social good, it's not foolishness it's been the way things work since forever. Companies are responsible for their employees' well being, for their impact on the environment, and they have many responsibilities to the government, this is all enshrined in many many laws. See also all the companies that came together to produce Covid equipment at cost at the beginning of the pandemic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com