People insisting that Steam is a monopoly are implicitly arguing action should be taken about it.
So I guess the question is - what do you want to do about it? If you are in fact saying it is a monopoly (and you’re not just saying you say it’s a monopoly) and saying it’s a monopoly must necessarily imply a call to action: what is that action?
The right answer is that there is no such call. So maybe you could stop insisting there is, and about ninety percent of this conversation would fall under ‘sure, oops, nevermind.’
Meanwhile any conversation about Steam’s marketshare - for example an article asking “Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC?” - kinda has to bring this up anyway. It has an impact… and a lot of people will implicitly or explicitly say nuh-uh, at length.
Meanwhile any conversation about Steam’s marketshare - for example an article asking “Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC?” - kinda has to bring this up anyway. It has an impact… and a lot of people will implicitly or explicitly say nuh-uh, at length.
Except, the article doesn’t say the word “monopoly” anywhere in it. If you wanted to have a conversation about Steam’s market share you could have just mentioned Steam’s market share. Then you don’t have to worry about other definitions of monopoly. “Steam has a significant portion of the market share” is true regardless, and easily followed with “and that’s a concern because…”
But you’re not interested in a clearly communicated conversation. You’re just arguing semantics and pretending you’re making a point.
So you acknowledge it fits the definition people actually use, but calling it the thing it is must be “arguing semantics?” The fuck.
Steam’s market share is a monopoly. That is the subject whether someone uses the word or not. That’s why it’s so goddamn weird that people circle the wagons whenever they hear it applied to this one blatant example. That’s either kneejerk denialism based on brand loyalty, or a cartoonish misunderstanding of how markets work. Or apparently a third thing where you insist you agree but also nuh-uh.
The comparison you used was calling the sky azure versus calling the sky blue, and you - yooou - are the one insisting that it must be one and not the other. You are the one giving me shit for using a label you claim to acknowledge as factually correct. But I am talking about Steam’s overwhelming market share. Because it’s a monopoly. That’s what the word means. They’re the same thing.
This conversation basically goes: ‘This room’s really crowded.’ Yeah, there’s an elephant in it. ‘That’s not an elephant! Elephants gore people.’ Followed by a literal year of explaining, even if this elephant does not do a thing which elephants can definitely do, it’s still a goddamn elephant.
Fact: Steam meets the legal definition of Monopoly
Fact: Steam does not meet the dictionary definition of Monopoly
Fact: Steam has an obscenely high market share regardless of which definition you are using.
Please let me know which fact you disagree with.
Give the conversation you remember so well from a year ago, you are well aware some people will have the dictionary definition of monopoly in mind. Likely because it is the most accessible. You could have bypassed all this nonsense about facts 1 and 2 if you just went straight to fact 3, but that would have required you actually caring about fact 3 more than fact 1.
‘Some people insist it’s not a monopoly’ is restating the problem.
Any discussion of Steam’s overwhelming market share requires the question ‘why does overwhelming market share matter?’ and the answer is ‘because that’s a monopoly.’ We could dance around the word itself, and just describe an elephant, but that only delays when people with misconceptions hear the word for this animal and go ‘nuh-uh.’
That delay would be worse - because it allows for people who acknowledge all the reasons Steam is a monopoly, and all the reasons that monopoly is a systemic risk, but will still insist with kneejerk certainty that Steam doesn’t count. It’s some other distinct thing, despite the absence of difference. That denialism is a lot harder to deal with than just telling people:
Real markets never have absolute monopolies.
When people say monopoly, they mean the legal definition.
Dictionaries which do not reflect that use are incomplete.
why does overwhelming market share matter?’ and the answer is ‘because that’s a monopoly.’
That’s a tautology. It would be equally relevant to say “why do monopolies matter? The answer is because that’s an overwhelming market share.”
Neither the word “monopoly” nor the phrase “overwhelming market share” inherently share the concerns of that situation. You’ve even been arguing that the using the word monopoly doesn’t actually matter: “do nothing about it, keep doing what you’ve been doing is fine”.
And to be clear: are you saying to disagree with the fact that Steam does not satisfy the dictionary definition of monopoly? Or with that fact that people are more likely to be familiar with the dictionary definition rather than the legal definition?
It’s cute how the word is interchangeable with the situation only when it suits your bickering.
When people think the word can only mean the cartoon absolute, weee shooould fiiix thaaat. I sure the fuck have not been arguing the word doesn’t matter - rather the opposite, at length. You just keep insisting risks don’t matter until they become actionable problems.
We must recognize this monopoly, because of the potential problems it can cause, even if those problems are at present only potential.
We really fucking ought to use the word specifically for this situation, because people already fucking know why monopolies are bad, even if they’re confused about what monopolies are.
even if they’re confused about what monopolies are.
So if you just said obscenely large market value that doesn’t diminish or minimize the risk, and neatly avoids the confusion about what monopolies are.
And then you said:
So I guess the question is - what do you want to do about it? If you are in fact saying it is a monopoly (and you’re not just saying you say it’s a monopoly) and saying it’s a monopoly must necessarily imply a call to action: what is that action?
The right answer is that there is no such call. So maybe you could stop insisting there is, and about ninety percent of this conversation would fall under ‘sure, oops, nevermind.’
Meanwhile any conversation about Steam’s marketshare - for example an article asking “Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC?” - kinda has to bring this up anyway. It has an impact… and a lot of people will implicitly or explicitly say nuh-uh, at length.
Except, the article doesn’t say the word “monopoly” anywhere in it. If you wanted to have a conversation about Steam’s market share you could have just mentioned Steam’s market share. Then you don’t have to worry about other definitions of monopoly. “Steam has a significant portion of the market share” is true regardless, and easily followed with “and that’s a concern because…”
But you’re not interested in a clearly communicated conversation. You’re just arguing semantics and pretending you’re making a point.
So you acknowledge it fits the definition people actually use, but calling it the thing it is must be “arguing semantics?” The fuck.
Steam’s market share is a monopoly. That is the subject whether someone uses the word or not. That’s why it’s so goddamn weird that people circle the wagons whenever they hear it applied to this one blatant example. That’s either kneejerk denialism based on brand loyalty, or a cartoonish misunderstanding of how markets work. Or apparently a third thing where you insist you agree but also nuh-uh.
The comparison you used was calling the sky azure versus calling the sky blue, and you - yooou - are the one insisting that it must be one and not the other. You are the one giving me shit for using a label you claim to acknowledge as factually correct. But I am talking about Steam’s overwhelming market share. Because it’s a monopoly. That’s what the word means. They’re the same thing.
This conversation basically goes: ‘This room’s really crowded.’ Yeah, there’s an elephant in it. ‘That’s not an elephant! Elephants gore people.’ Followed by a literal year of explaining, even if this elephant does not do a thing which elephants can definitely do, it’s still a goddamn elephant.
Fact: Steam meets the legal definition of Monopoly
Fact: Steam does not meet the dictionary definition of Monopoly
Fact: Steam has an obscenely high market share regardless of which definition you are using.
Please let me know which fact you disagree with.
Give the conversation you remember so well from a year ago, you are well aware some people will have the dictionary definition of monopoly in mind. Likely because it is the most accessible. You could have bypassed all this nonsense about facts 1 and 2 if you just went straight to fact 3, but that would have required you actually caring about fact 3 more than fact 1.
‘Some people insist it’s not a monopoly’ is restating the problem.
Any discussion of Steam’s overwhelming market share requires the question ‘why does overwhelming market share matter?’ and the answer is ‘because that’s a monopoly.’ We could dance around the word itself, and just describe an elephant, but that only delays when people with misconceptions hear the word for this animal and go ‘nuh-uh.’
That delay would be worse - because it allows for people who acknowledge all the reasons Steam is a monopoly, and all the reasons that monopoly is a systemic risk, but will still insist with kneejerk certainty that Steam doesn’t count. It’s some other distinct thing, despite the absence of difference. That denialism is a lot harder to deal with than just telling people:
Real markets never have absolute monopolies.
When people say monopoly, they mean the legal definition.
Dictionaries which do not reflect that use are incomplete.
That’s a tautology. It would be equally relevant to say “why do monopolies matter? The answer is because that’s an overwhelming market share.”
Neither the word “monopoly” nor the phrase “overwhelming market share” inherently share the concerns of that situation. You’ve even been arguing that the using the word monopoly doesn’t actually matter: “do nothing about it, keep doing what you’ve been doing is fine”.
And to be clear: are you saying to disagree with the fact that Steam does not satisfy the dictionary definition of monopoly? Or with that fact that people are more likely to be familiar with the dictionary definition rather than the legal definition?
It’s cute how the word is interchangeable with the situation only when it suits your bickering.
When people think the word can only mean the cartoon absolute, weee shooould fiiix thaaat. I sure the fuck have not been arguing the word doesn’t matter - rather the opposite, at length. You just keep insisting risks don’t matter until they become actionable problems.
We must recognize this monopoly, because of the potential problems it can cause, even if those problems are at present only potential.
We really fucking ought to use the word specifically for this situation, because people already fucking know why monopolies are bad, even if they’re confused about what monopolies are.
So if you just said obscenely large market value that doesn’t diminish or minimize the risk, and neatly avoids the confusion about what monopolies are.