> Lots of people have created objectively better sites than Craigslist, but they fail because of network lock-in.
There is no lock in. A buyer or seller is free to move place their listing or make their purchase from any number of alternatives regardless and Craigslist can't stop them.
> Sites like Craigslist and LinkedIn have become the new natural monopolies.
Mark Zuckerburg would probably disagree with that statement. In 2005 MySpace would have been the equivalent of Craigslist, massive network, shitty design and no data portability. If the value provided by alternatives to CL were as superior as most HN readers believe them to be then END USERS would see that as well and migrate just like MySpace users migrated to FB. But they don't so CL retains its dominance, the failure of alternatives is not indication that CL is cheating or doing anything even remotely monopolistic.
> And demanding that they open up their data is the natural, and right, action to bring back natural market competition that benefits consumers and the world at large.
The data is open, just not in a format you think you are entitled to it in. It's open in that the same poster that put their listing on CL can post the same listing on alternatives, they just choose not to. Convince the seller or buyer of the value you bring to the table and they will open their data to you as well.
Many HN readers have reached the conclusion that convenience and competition are the same thing. They aren't.
If the value provided by alternatives to CL were as superior as most
HN readers believe them to be then END USERS would see that as well and
migrate just like MySpace users migrated to FB.
That's not necessarily true. I see network effects as something of a negative externality, one that is hit particularly hard by the tragedy of the commons. The problem is that even if every single person on Facebook decided that YourBookSpace was a better website that provided more value, no one would leave because until everyone else followed, your network wouldn't be there.
This type of dilemma is known as a collective action problem. When these problems arise the best way forward is often to have a superauthority such as the government step in for everyone's benefit. For example, even though it is generally accepted that free trade increases the world's prosperity when it is practiced around the world, individual countries occasionally see immediate advantage in adopting mercantilist or protectionist economic policies. The GATT is an attempt to provide a superauthority to stop such practices, because the immediate gains possible when a country embargoes an enemy are not as valuable as a system where the majority of actors behave in open and unbiased ways.
The free market doesn't work on its own. When there are systemic problems in the way actors conduct business, judiciously applied regulation can help promote the public interest.
That's not necessarily true. I see network effects as something of a negative externality, one that is hit particularly hard by the tragedy of the commons. The problem is that even if every single person on Facebook decided that YourBookSpace was a better website that provided more value, no one would leave because until everyone else followed, your network wouldn't be there.
This type of dilemma is known as a collective action problem.
The collective action problem either did not exist or was not a sufficient problem to prevent FB from overtaking MySpace. The Tragedy of the Commons actually worked as an exploitable marketing angle for FB in the form of exclusivity (initially at least). The winners will turn their disadvantages into advantages.
What most on HN don't want to admit is that the brilliance of their code or the beauty of their design alone are not enough to guarantee success. We still have to market our wares and if the value derived from our code+designs isn't greater than the value provided by CL's network + usability + cost then that doesn't mean we call our parents or a referee or a senator and tell them we need the playing field leveled because the end users are too lazy to see how deserving we are of their business.
Paper classified still exist, web based CL alternatives still exist (Backpages.com is a big one), CL is not a monopoly and a "superauthority" is not the answer.
And how would we know when a "superauthority" needs to step in, "judiciously applied" is subjective. Successful passing of SOPA would have been "judiciously applied" "superauthority" in the eyes of the entertainment industry.
The free market doesn't work on its own.
I'm of the belief that the free market isn't perfect, maybe not even close to it, but I don't think you've explained how the free market has failed to address the HN community's "perceived" problem that CL presents.
Agreed. My argument was perhaps a little strong. Craigslist is far from a monopoly and people can and do successfully list their apartments in all sorts of places.
I do think there are web companies who could really do some anti-competitive things that we should watch out for. Facebook is probably the most capable, or maybe Google if they went off the deep end and started holding companies hostage through their search. The argument still stands, I think, even if it doesn't justify intervening on behalf of a company that wants to improve Craigslist search.
There is no lock in. A buyer or seller is free to move place their listing or make their purchase from any number of alternatives regardless and Craigslist can't stop them.
> Sites like Craigslist and LinkedIn have become the new natural monopolies.
Mark Zuckerburg would probably disagree with that statement. In 2005 MySpace would have been the equivalent of Craigslist, massive network, shitty design and no data portability. If the value provided by alternatives to CL were as superior as most HN readers believe them to be then END USERS would see that as well and migrate just like MySpace users migrated to FB. But they don't so CL retains its dominance, the failure of alternatives is not indication that CL is cheating or doing anything even remotely monopolistic.
> And demanding that they open up their data is the natural, and right, action to bring back natural market competition that benefits consumers and the world at large.
The data is open, just not in a format you think you are entitled to it in. It's open in that the same poster that put their listing on CL can post the same listing on alternatives, they just choose not to. Convince the seller or buyer of the value you bring to the table and they will open their data to you as well.
Many HN readers have reached the conclusion that convenience and competition are the same thing. They aren't.