And for that data, they provide you with services. That doesn't mean they should be required to hand that data out to any service that requests it?
I mean, are you really asking that companies like LinkedIn allow free access to it's api's and user data to any 3rd party that requests it?
> Monopolies are illegal for a reason.
Well, no. Monopolies just require additional oversight. Microsoft, for example, didn't get in trouble for being a monopoly, it got in trouble for unfair business practices as a monopoly. More importantly, a monopoly doesn't exist with any of the companies presented in this article.
Really though, your comment fits with the picture at the top of the article.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that if the members want their data free, they can "negotiate" for allowing 3rd parties to access it? That goes without saying.
So, either you are saying something else, or just stating the status quo.
And for that data, they provide you with services. That doesn't mean they should be required to hand that data out to any service that requests it?
I mean, are you really asking that companies like LinkedIn allow free access to it's api's and user data to any 3rd party that requests it?
> Monopolies are illegal for a reason.
Well, no. Monopolies just require additional oversight. Microsoft, for example, didn't get in trouble for being a monopoly, it got in trouble for unfair business practices as a monopoly. More importantly, a monopoly doesn't exist with any of the companies presented in this article.
Really though, your comment fits with the picture at the top of the article.