that's fair?

 I haven't read much about it or listened to the news about it. Apparently Facebook is being sued. From what I understand it is because they are becoming a monopoly. Facebook purchased snap-chat and some other platforms. The accusation being they are going to control the social media market. I'm a little confused by that seeing as how I don't have to pay a thing to use that platform. I mean, I get the idea of a monopoly, to control and be the sole source of a product or service. In that fashion you can charge what you like. And I also understand it is always about money, no matter what is being said to the contrary, the bottom line is always money. Zuckerberg isn't running Facebook as a charity that much is certain. But is it a monopoly when the "consumer" does not have to pay to use that service. And Facebook is a service, an entertainment service. The only ones paying are the advertisers. Is the argument that Facebook is cornering the advertising market? There are no other social networks to advertise on? I've heard of others recently, it is just that none of them are as popular. Facebook was the first. 

 For me the big question would be, does Facebook, by any of its' practices prevent anyone else from having a social networking site? If they do not, why they should be broken up. If Henry Fords' cars were so popular that no one would buy any other would that then have made his car company a monopoly? Isn't this the same thing? If the majority of the people choose to use Facebook should the government then intervene saying you can't do that. Should other social media sites be mandatory? Isn't using a social media site a choice of the individual? Is it an essential thing? I don't believe it is and for that reason I don't see how it can be a monopoly that injures anyone. The writer of a book is the sole owner of that property. Using this logic couldn't you sue that author for having a monopoly on their intellectual property? I don't see how, and isn't that what we call a copyright? Now as the owner of that property I can license others to use it, think Disney and toy companies, but I still own the property. Facebook sells advertisers the right to hawk their products, I don't have to buy those products though. A monopoly gives the owner the exclusive control of a commodity or service. Is Facebook either of those? I think we can all agree that Facebook isn't a commodity.  That leaves it as a service. So what service does it provide? Entertainment. Is that an essential service not available anywhere else? I don't think so. 

 Who is suing Facebook? From what little I understand it is those that would like to have their own social networking sites. What is the impediment to that? The cost of building such a network is the bottom line. Facebook already has gained the majority of users, ie: popularity and familiarity. The argument from those others is that they can't compete. Really I hear them saying, it isn't fair! Zuckerberg and Facebook were first and "cornered" the market. Thing is, what is that market? Being popular? Was it a monopoly when Elvis Presley had a string of number one songs and other artists just couldn't compete? Is it a monopoly when movie companies own the franchise, like Star Wars? 

 Well, I'll hear more about it I'm sure. It will wind its' way through the courts. As for me I'll continue using Facebook as long as I don't have to pay a fee for such use. I'm not concerned with what advertisers pay to post their stuff. I don't care about any of that. There's a simple reason for that. You can advertise anything you want, as often as you want and I won't buy it unless I want to buy it. You can post your political views, news and analysis all day long. I may or may not read that. I will decide for myself what I believe or disbelieve. I do not rely on Facebook for providing me with intellectual property! I understand what it is, an entertainment. Something I can choose to use, or not use. Should I choose to not use it that will not injure me in any way. Facebook does not have a monopoly on me! I question, can we sue a company because they are too popular? So popular that I feel like I can't start a similar business and compete with that? For that reason I sue them? You have to scale down your popularity? You will use a different social media site because the government says you have to because that's fair? And from what I know that's the big problem here, it isn't fair. More people are driving a Ford than a Chevy! That's just not fair.