[woojoo666]

Monopolies don't need to have all the market share, there just needs to be no viable substitutes. And a social network that is tiny with barely any content, is not a viable substitute. Another characteristic is high barriers to entry, which for social networks, includes overcoming the network effect as well as dealing with Cloudflare, Mastercard, etc. It doesn't matter if there are work arounds, if the cost of these workarounds is high, it's a monopoly.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

[scarface74]

Movements are started by people creating their own “networks”. You know people were getting their voices heard way before social media was a thing.

The entire legal (at least in states where they are legal) weed industry has a viable business without banks, credit cards, etc.

If you truly believe in your message and enough other people are interested, you don’t let minor roadblocks stand in your way.

The civil rights movement didn’t boo hoo that things were “hard to work around”.

[woojoo666]

> The civil rights movement didn’t boo hoo that things were “hard to work around”.

I'm quite confident that the civil rights movement did complain that things were hard to work around. That didn't stop the movement of course. Just like people are still fighting the big tech monopoly, despite the uphill battle