btmoney06

Academics and the New Yorker staff: "Everybody is biased, except for me of course."

Were the New Yorker honest, they'd entitle this: "Why the Uneducated Don't Understand That You're Right." Which is a shame. This type of information should be used to help better the reader by asking them to understand their own blind spots--not indulge the reader by telling them that their adversary is ignorant and irraitonal.

I tend to agree. The problem is that the elites weaponize stuff like this, because they think it applies only to the masses--not the highly educated. Instead of asking why somebody might have different views (and instead of actually learning what the different viewpoints are), they just assume that that other, less educated people fail to actually analyze the data.

How much did they pay in exchange fees and "slippage" to convert that to dollars? And how long did it take to do that?

If we’re focusing on ad buyers instead of users, then why isn’t the relevant market just all “advertising companies” (instead of social media companies)? When you compare Facebook to other advertising companies, their market share dwindles. Google holds the advertising throne.

There’s over a hundred and twenty year of antitrust law that says that conduct is improper if it leads to higher prices for consumers. Why does Yale insist that antitrust can apply when prices are 0?

This is dead on. Moreover, I find it a bit funny that the authors consider WhatsApp to be a social media platform, but not iMessage. Similarly, they consider YouTube to be a social media platform, but not Twitch (or any of the paid services like Netflix). If they were intellectually honest, Facebook's market share would be nowhere near what they claim.