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.
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.
Pretending there’s a difference doesn’t avoid the confusion… it is the confusion.
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.
Pretending there’s a difference doesn’t avoid the confusion… it is the confusion.