Political parties compete, managers compete, companies compete, most people say capitalism is competition, free markets are competition. What’s wrong with competition? Simple. One wins, all the others loose, after that it’s a race to the bottom. What you want to do is to create a monopoly. That’s when you win without competing (much).
Conservatives and ‘right wingers’ want to compete with left wing views on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, in order to win over people who may change their mind. Now they complain that they are getting censored, and whine about there being no alternative to these social media sites. Muh free speech man, muh free speech. Most people recognize now, that these companies have created monopolies which simply bought up any potential competitor, used trademark-, patent- and copyright-laws in order to kick away the ladder for any aggressive competitor.
Facebook had to compete a little with Friendster, Myspace and Linkedin, but they didn’t dominate social media by competition. Facebook had unique features that made it easy to use and easy to sell advertising, and as soon as the big advertising Dollars rolled in, they were able to outdo any potential competitor. It’s puzzling how Twitter can still dominate the market, even though they are loosing money every day. Well, who wants to compete with a money-loosing business? GAB.ai depends on donations and has no business model, which actually involves earning money at all. YouTube doesn’t make money and is sponsored by the parent company Google/Alphabet, which makes all its money through its search engine with advertising. Who wants to compete against YouTube, which is loosing money? Vid.me already gave up. Other platforms like Vimeo charge the uploader for video hosting, instead of paying them ad-revenue like YouTube.
Competition is good for the user or customer, as it brings prices down, but it’s futile for the competitor against the monopoly. Monopolies can be regulated by states, but then they are still monopolies. The only way to eliminate a monopoly is to create a new monopoly that makes the old one obsolete. There’s no competition of horse buggies versus cars today.
I have no idea what an alternative to Facebook, Twitter or YouTube would look like. If I had an idea, I’d probably do it. Considering that at least 9 out of 10 startups fail, that’s a risky business; and that leaves out the 99% which don’t even get to be a startup.
Are ad-revenue based platforms doomed? Are donation based platforms doomed? Are peer-to-peer networks a solution against censorship? Who knows?
As an interim solution to avoid censorship, donation based platforms and channels may be the way to go. Another interim solution might be to create ad-revenue based platforms which cooperate with right-leaning businesses like e.g. guns, preppers, lesser known clothing brands (zazzle, Thor Steinar, Urban Outfitters, Right Wing, etc.), knickknacks, books, etc. If you were lucky enough to make some money with your new platform, it’s very important to avoid being undermined by Lefties. Lock them out and ignore them, just as they lock you out of social media or the job market.
If e.g. Google wants to censor conservative, right-wing and even libertarian views in their search engine, you stand no chance to compete with Google. The tiny minority which actually cares is no basis for a competing business model to the dominating search engine. The only counter measure is to create you own networks, where like-minded people can find each other. Inside these networks, you don’t compete, but you cooperate. Then create products and services which make money. Use the money to create bigger networks, more products and services. Make use of capitalism and free markets, not to compete, but to cooperate.
The new Microsoft will not be a company that makes operating systems. The new Google will not be a company that runs a search engine. The new Twitter will not be a company that offers a short message service. The new Facebook will not be a social media company. The new Apple will not be a company that builds computers. And most probably, the new form of government will not be a democracy.