> Facebook achieved market dominance in an open market, it's hard to convincingly argue that they won by doing things against the desires of the market.

This is the information asymmetry. People sign up without understanding how the algorithm works, or sign up not knowing that the corporation can change the algorithm at any time to make it more abusive. Then the network effect locks them in even if some eventually figure it out.

So beating them in the market takes two things. First, yours has to be better.

Designing something which is better at the expense of being less (but not un-) profitable is straightforward. Let users choose the algorithm, they'll typically want one that optimizes for quality over volume etc., so you'll make less money but not none.

Second, people have to know yours is better. This is the information problem. This is also partially a coordination problem. You need everyone to find out quickly enough that enough can switch together and overcome the network effect before the early people forget about it or try it and give up because no one else is there.

That's not a trivial problem but it's hardly a violation of the laws of physics either. And if you can do it one time, the network effect is now in your favor.

> How does market competition divorce the network from the algorithm?

Because that's how you get people to switch from Facebook. That's the competitive advantage that Facebook doesn't have. Not locking you into a specific algorithm, which informed users would prefer once they learn the consequences of not having that.

In theory Facebook could see this coming and do this voluntarily. Then it would lose 90% rather than 100% of its profits because it couldn't optimize for getting people to spend all day on Facebook once users could choose an algorithm that doesn't do that.

Or their refusal to do this creates an opportunity for someone else to.

The claim that Facebook users don't like using Facebook needs to be proven.

People who don't want it have moved on.

Facebook is like Congress. People like their part but hate the other parts.

They don't need to not like it. It's relative. They just have to like the new thing better.

Which shouldn't be hard when they're objectively maximizing engagement at your expense. The hard part is figuring out how to overcome the network effect.

> Which shouldn't be hard when they're objectively maximizing engagement at your expense.

This needs more proof - specifically, would people agree it's at their short term expense even if they agree it's against their long term expense? Lots of successful short-term fun, long-term negative products out there in the world, and we rarely expect - or see - the free market alone to make those products go away.

Most products like that don't actually work. Payday loans are available to everyone, but people typically don't use them to buy luxury goods. The people who take them out use them to avoid things that are long-term worse, like eviction or losing your job because you couldn't pay to get to work.

The products in that category you see succeeding are survivorship bias, like cigarettes. Which only works because it builds a physical dependency.

But maybe the algorithm is like nicotine and it's hard to break the habit. We can still win, because we can offer the same algorithm, because we can offer more than one. So you switch because you aspire to quit. You want the option. And you don't have to quit today, you can switch and keep the addictive one.

But then you have a choice. You can turn it off when you're feeling strong. Wean yourself. Time lock the bad one in your client.

Which eventually makes it easier to quit smoking altogether.

Where does ethics fit into your thesis?

The natural extension of "we don't have to simply blindly accept that the result of market competition == the outcome that we'd all choose if we thought about the big picture and not just the in-the-moment choices" is that we would definitely not assume "the result of market competition == anything ethical."

Changing outcomes/behaviors to ensure people act ethically would have to come from an outside-the-market force, like government.