Tim Wu Redefines “Monopoly”

by on November 13, 2010 · 34 comments

Tim Wu appears hell-bent of redefining the English language.  After reading his new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires [See my 6-part review: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and his new editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal, “In the Grip of the New Monopolists,” it’s clear to me that he has made it his mission in life to redefine some rather basic, widely-accepted economic terms to suit his own political purposes.  Among them: “market power,” “monopoly,” and “laissez-faire.”  I addressed his misuse of the term “market power” here and misunderstanding of the term “laissez-faire” here.

In today’s Journal editorial, it’s “monopoly” that Wu seeks to redefine.  He begins his essay by asking: “How hard would it be to go a week without Google?  Or, to up the ante, without Facebook, Amazon, Skype, Twitter, Apple, eBay and Google?”  He continues on to suggest that these “new monopolists” have an iron lock on their respective markets and that there appears little hope of escaping them.

But the problem with his argument that “we are living in an age of large information monopolies” begins with the fact that he speaks of “monopolies” in a plural sense and apparently misses the irony of that entirely.  If so many “information monopolies” exist, then Wu’s thesis is undermined by the very fact that no one company dominates the Internet landscape.  What Wu is really suggesting is that the Digital Economy landscape is littered with dominant firms in industry sectors that he has defined extremely narrowly. 

But even if one accepts Wu’s artificial, narrowly-defined industry sub-sectors (and I certainly don’t), he completely ignores the competition taking place among many of these giants and the fact that innovation and new entry continues at a healthy clip.  This week’s big news, for example, is the Google-Facebook war over email as Facebook readies a “Gmail killer.”  And it’s not like there aren’t plenty of other email options out there from large and small companies alike (most of which are free).  Meanwhile, Google has been trying to whittle away at Facebook’s social networking dominance, and many other social networking services exist for those unhappy with Facebook. (Some of us don’t bother with FB at all, believe it or not!  I’m mostly a LinkedIn guy. My Facebook page just directs people to my LI account).  Meanwhile, Microsoft has desires of its own in these areas, of course, and continues to compete aggressively. And I guess everyone has forgotten about MySpace already, even though I bet Wu would have named it a “monopolist” if he would have penned his editorial in 2007 instead of today.

What about Amazon and eBay?  If you define markets as narrowly as Wu does, then a case could be made they have formidable market power in their respective fields.  Back in the real world, however, most of us know that there are plenty of places online to engage in shopping, and Amazon and eBay actually compete quite aggressively against each other for our allegiance while fending off countless scrappy smaller competitors.  While many of those competitors lack the comprehensiveness of either Amazon or eBay, it doesn’t mean they don’t give them a run for their money in niche markets.  Think of cars, clothes, electronics, books, appliances, etc.  There are too many rivals in each of those niches and others to list here.

What about Apple?  It’s certainly a big, successful company making some terrifically innovative products and services that some people can’t seem to live without.  Yet, millions of us have completely rejected Apple.  I don’t have a single Apple product in my home and — no offense to the Apple fanboys out there — I really can’t understand why anyone would use anything the company offers considering the many wonderful competing products that exist in all the markets in which Apple competes: computers, tablets, operating systems, smartphones, online music stores, etc.  If Apple is a “monopolist,” shouldn’t it mean an information-hungry guy like me should be forced to own at least one thing the company offers?

Finally, Wu audaciously suggests that even Twitter is now a “monopolist”!  This is a company that didn’t even exist a few years ago and yet Wu is willing to write off the market as theirs.  But what is Twitter’s market, exactly?  Isn’t it really in competition with many other forms of communication and information dissemination?  For me, Twitter is a partial substitute for IMs, email, phone calls, and my RSS feed. Yet, like most others, I continue to use all those other technologies and those technologies continue to pressure Twitter to innovate.  Is Wu really suggesting that nothing better will come along to compete against Twitter or even replace it entirely?  (It reminds me of all the hand-wringing we heard about AOL a decade ago when people predicted its “walled gardens” would someday rule the Internet and IM).   Meanwhile, even if one accepted to premise that Twitter was a monopolist today, where is the harm?

Which gets to perhaps most stunning thing about Wu’s editorial today: He never even posits a “harm” that might be coming from the rise of these “new monopolists.”  That’s not surprising, of course, since he’d be hard-pressed to make the case that the sky is falling or that consumers are somehow the victims of some horrendous plight.  Hell, most of these services don’t cost consumers a dime!  And they are constantly innovating and offering an improved consumer experience.  If this is “monopoly,” then give us more!

What Tim Wu is really doing is propagating the simplistic old saw that “Big Is Bad.”  We could argue about how big is too big, but we shouldn’t confuse that debate with Wu’s mistaken redefinition of the term “monopoly.”  He has intentionally watered down the term “monopolist” such that it now means any combination of big firms he personally doesn’t approve of in markets that he has defined far too narrowly.   That’s not a proper understanding of the term “monopoly” and it most certainly isn’t an accurate representation of the real world of exciting digital innovation and ingenuity that we live in today.

It’s a shame Tim Wu continues to adopt such a hyper-pessimistic worldview and take such static, myopic snapshots of the state of the Digital Economy.   We should be celebrating the world we live in today, not bemoaning it.


[UPDATE 11/25:  See Prof. Wu’s response here on the TLF.  Two additional responses worth reading: “What’s An Internet Monopolist” by Josh Wright & Geoff Manne here on the TLF + “Should We Be Afraid of Apple, Google and Facebook?” by Matthew Ingram over at GigaOm.]

  • Jim Harper

    I’m at a loss to think of any other word that is as self-refuting as “monopolists” in Wu’s usage. Every gas station has a monopoly on sales of gas on its corner, so watch out for the crowd of monopolists all trying to sell you gas! It’s disappointing but not surprising to see what qualifies as important commentary for a major news site like WSJ.

    Notably, earlier this morning, I posted here about how to avoid being dragged into a social network you may not want to be a part of (Ping). Yet “forgoing Facebook … means giving up whole categories of activity.” No. It really doesn’t.

    Professor Wu has yet to respond to your series of critiques, though he said he would a week ago. It speaks volumes that he’ll concentrate on spreading Internet FUD rather than answering sound criticism of his thesis.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    I saw Prof. Wu on Tuesday night at a dinner party and he said he was still thinking about a response. However, he seems quite busy with his book tour and teaching duties, so I’m not sure if anything will be forthcoming.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p00d83451d3b369e2 tomslee

    I don’t understand your complaint, even on narrow technical grounds.

    “Monopoly” is always used with respect to a limited market, and applies over a limited period of time. If a local grocery store is the only store with ice on a hot summer day, it has a monopoly. A few days later it doesn’t, and over a large area it doesn’t, but for that day the price of bags of ice may go up.

    The digital world is now big enough that I see no contradiction in talking about “monopoly” of parts of it. Sure, “no one company dominates the Internet landscape”, but no one company dominates the terrestrial landscape either – yet my local cable company is still a monopoly. Many monopolies are limited, and may not last very long (witness Microsoft’s monopolies a few years ago), and we can live without them very happily – but that doesn’t stop them being monopolies.

    And of course the idea of “monopolistic competition” is not a contradiction at all, but has a long and fruitful history.

    You want to restrict use of the word “monopoly” to a very small subset of those cases where it is commonly used. You are free to do so, but your haughty assertions that Wu is manipulative or ignorant are ill-founded.

  • Ryan Radia

    The problem is that under your definition of “monopoly” few, if any, of the companies Wu identifies as “information empires” actually qualify. Many of them don’t even control the majority of their respective markets! And those that do hardly have a position that could reasonably described as anything close to unassailable.

    Amazon is one of many, many large retailers on the Web. But, while Amazon may be the largest of them, Target, Walmart, Macy’s, Costco, NewEgg, and dozens of other massive retailers sell tens of billions of dollars of merchandise online each year. Skype is a very popular service for calling (and video-chatting with) people, but many people instead use Vonage, Google Talk, or their local cable company’s VOIP service. Facebook is big in social networking, but so is MySpace — and, importantly, most significant aspects of Facebook’s service faces stiff competition. (For photo albums, there’s Flickr; for status updates, there’s Twitter; for event invitations, there’s eVite, and so forth.) Because of its high market share, perhaps Google would qualify as a monopoly in Internet search under a conventional definition of the term. But switching from Google to one of its competitors is very easy. Does Wu really think Google would retain its status as an “empire” for more than a few months (or, perhaps years) if it simply stopped innovating and started trying to hold on to its existing market power? I doubt it.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    Tom… For the sake of argument, let’s say I agree with you (and Wu) about market definition (which I obviously do not). Moving on then, let’s hear your theory of harm. I’m dying to hear someone articulate one since Wu refuses to.

  • Jim Harper

    Tom. you need to go to a dictionary and look up the word “monopoly.” Here’s a good batch of information about what it means: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly – one seller, who dominates the market and exerts powerful control over it.

    There is no sense in which any real-world grocery store has a monopoly on ice. If you break down the walls around the concept of “monopoly,” you can’t have a meaningful conversation about these issues.

  • Tim Wu

    First. The confusion here is between the requirements of the english language and those of the Sherman Act. The english word “Monopoly” does not somehow include any necessity of “market harm.” Market harm is a requirement of the Sherman Act, not the English language.

    There are, in other words, monopolies that do not cause market harm; which is exactly what I point out in the piece with the theory of a “golden age.”

    That there are numerous markets with one dominant seller, i.e., a monopolist, cannot be questioned. Apple has 69% of music downloads. Google has about 86% of search query volume. Facebook has 500 million users; Myspace about 70 million. You may argue over what a market is; but if you accept that something like search is a service, Google is clearly the monopoly provider of that service.

    Second. I agree that there are efforts by some of these actors to invade each others territories. The point of the piece is that these efforts, over the last 5 years, have largely failed, and that the core dominance in every market retains intact.

    As I suggest the WSJ piece, there may be some changes over time. But what is so interesting is the pattern of dominant firms in every market; and what I am curious about is why that is happening when it seemed that people thought that multi-competitor competition in each market would be sustainable.

    Third. If there is only one Inn in town it has, indeed, a “local monopoly.” This is long-standing usage in the English language.

    Finally: another way of putting the point of this piece would this: In the Internet markets, it looks like Adam Smith was wrong, and Schumpeter was right. Now why don’t you debate that point instead of this stupid squabbling over the word “monopoly.”

    A monopoly is a market with a dominant seller – somewhere north of 50%, let’s say.

  • Tim Wu

    I hope to finish my full response to Adam’s posts soon. However, 17,000 words is a lot to digest.

  • Pingback: Blurring Borders » Blog Archive » Power in the Network Society()

  • http://blurringborders.com Kevin Donovan

    Simply, I think we’re getting hung up on semantics here. What we’re worried about, at the core, is the power that entities in the network society can exert on individuals. Grewal’s 2008 book Network Power does a great job explaining how this happens and can be countered, and I’ve offered it as a middle-ground in this post: http://blurringborders.com/2010/11/14/power-in-the-network-societ/

  • Allen S. Wang

    I am no historian of corporate America. But as a dot com executive for 15 years who has witnessed the rise and fall of many dot com companies, I am thrilled to have come across Prof. Wu’s new book on yesterday’s WSJ. I ordered his book and plan to send to many of my CIO customers. What Wu impressed me the most is that he pointed out WE collectively contributed to the rise of an information enterprise, for the convenience of Network Power (or MetCalfe’s Law on Network Effects), and giving up our freedom of choice simultaneously. It is impossible to look at the history without talking about the “repetitive” human behavior out of fear, conformity and ego when power is within reach. Wu is right about the priority changes after the business enters into a dominant position, when shareholder’s interest is at odd against consumer’s interest. Many times, the priority changes when the leadership passes from founders to next generation “professional managers”. The biggest call of Prof. Wu, I dare to surmise, is on how our society can be waken to protect our very own freedom of choice collectively, avoid paying the cost associated with the repetitive rise and fall of dominant powers, in the context of human nature, intelligently.

  • Allen S. Wang

    I am no historian of corporate America. But as a dot com executive for 15 years who has witnessed the rise and fall of many dot com companies, I am thrilled to have come across Prof. Wu’s new book on yesterday’s WSJ. I ordered his book and plan to send to many of my CIO customers. What Wu impressed me the most is that he pointed out WE collectively contributed to the rise of an information enterprise, for the convenience of Network Power (or MetCalfe’s Law on Network Effects), and giving up our freedom of choice simultaneously. It is impossible to look at the history without talking about the “repetitive” human behavior out of fear, conformity and ego when power is within reach. Wu is right about the priority changes after the business enters into a dominant position, when shareholder’s interest is at odd against consumer’s interest. Many times, the priority changes when the leadership passes from founders to next generation “professional managers”. The biggest call of Prof. Wu, I dare to surmise, is on how our society can be waken to protect our very own freedom of choice collectively, avoid paying the cost associated with the repetitive rise and fall of dominant powers, in the context of human nature, intelligently.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    Another take worth reading: “How Durable Are Information Monopolies On The Internet?” by Erick Schonfeld of TechCrunch. http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/13/information-monopolies-internet

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    Tim, if you really believe that “A monopoly is a market with a dominant seller – somewhere north of 50%, let’s say,” then I suspect you also believe that a large percentage of major economic sectors in the U.S. economy are also “monopolies”? Athletic shoes, soda pop, cereal, candy makers, chemicals, blue jeans, etc., etc., … there are countless markets where one player has more than 50% market share.

    Two points on this, however. First, those markets aren’t typically nearly as dynamic as digital markets. You focus on lock-in for digital markets, but relative to many Old Economy industries and technologies, digital / online markets actually experience a great deal of churn and competitive entry. You seem to completely discount this in your work and I find that highly unfortunate. Second, and relatedly, it is FAR easier to define markets narrowly in many of those older sectors precisely because they aren’t nearly as dynamic as information markets, where the boundaries of “markets” is morphing constantly. It is hard to even know what to call some of the markets these companies compete in today because of the fluidity of innovation. (I made that point about Twitter in my essay above).

    And to both you and Kevin Donovan, I will say this: The semantics of the term “monopoly” ARE important because, whether or not you care to admit it, your watering-down of the term has profound ramifications for the study of economics and government antitrust enforcement efforts. This discussion is not happening in vacuum. If one claims that our new economy landscape is littered with “information monopolies,” it begs the question of what we (or the State) are going to do about it. You certainly have some pretty bold ideas in your book, which I notice you didn’t spend any time discussing in your editorial yesterday. Why is that?
    Anyway, here’s the challenge to you, going forward:

    • Better define the contours of the markets you want examined / policed;
    • Better explain to us the consumer harms you think need to be addressed (and I hope those harms are something concrete, not conjectural); and
    • Give us a roadmap regarding where we go from here in terms of remedies to address these supposed harms.

    I very much look forward to your response to those three things so we can continue this interesting conversation.

  • Jim Harper

    Ever since I took Latin in sixth grade, I’ve known that “mono” means “one” (except for a brief period a few years later when “mono” meant “the kissing disease”). I refer you again to the definition and etymology of the word at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly.

    Mono = one. Poleo = barter, sell. Monopolist = one seller. It doesn’t mean “a seller who has ‘north of 50%’ of the market.” Greek and Latin are the longest-standing usages.

    If monopolist meant “a seller having 50%+ of the market” then we need to discard the word “duopoly” because any market in which there are two sellers is actually a monopoly-plus-a-hanger-on-having-49%-or-less-of-the-market. No, we use the word “duopoly” to indicate “two sellers.” (And we’ll continue flexibly adding prefixes to “opoly” until we discover the point at which everyone can agree that there’s competition! Perhaps that’s googlopoly…)

    The reason why the word “monopoly” is important is because of its negative connotation. Even fans of the market and skeptics of antitrust (I’m both) regard a monopoly as a necessary evil in which prices are temporarily higher than they should be or quality lower. The regulatory camp regards monopoly as a justification for government intervention.

    Perhaps the phrase “local monopoly” started to breach the walls of the concept, but that phrase is meaningful only if people can’t move around. If people can move, it just means “seller in a particular place.”

    In your WSJ piece, you’ve apparently used the negatively connotative word “monopoly” interchangeably with “seller.” This is an equivocation that deserves airing. It’s not stupid squabbling over semantics. Your whole piece rests on the idea that monopolies are concerning, but the companies and markets you’re talking about are far less concerning than you’ve lead WSJ readers to believe.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687753451 Fionn Dempsey

    I think the idea about Apple is that once you’ve bought into that market, you are increasingly limited in terms of your software and peripheral choice.

    That the no-opt-out appstore model for software does actually grant a sort of monopoly to Apple, and that Apple seem (at least to some) eager to move their personal computer market towards that model too.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p00d83451d3b369e2 tomslee

    I like that approach, and appreciate it. I would say there are three forms of harm.

    One is spelled out by Tim Wu that the problems come not so much when a monopoly (word used advisedly) is establishing itself, as when it is aging. As Wu writes, “The problem is that dominant firms are like congressional incumbents and African dictators: They rarely give up even when they are clearly past their prime. Facing decline, they do everything possible to stay in power. And that’s when the rest of us suffer.” As I’m sure you know, he argues in his WSJ piece that aging monopolies seek regulatory protection from competition, and gives cable companies and phone network carriers as examples. I would have thought you might be sympathetic to this argument.

    A second is that monopolies can inhibit innovation in nearby markets. I think that Microsoft delayed standards-based browser innovation for several years for this reason, although I’m not an expert in what happened there.

    A third is the standard one of pricing, of course. Of course, we aren’t paying for Google but then we are not its customers. Their leading position in search gives them some control over pricing in the advertising market, and the consumers of the advertised products end up paying those bills.

    But you must have thought of these and discarded them. I’d be interested to know why.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p00d83451d3b369e2 tomslee

    The roots may be in “mono” but even Google’s economist Hal Varian recognises (in “Intermediate Microeconomics”) that a monopoly is “a situation where a market is dominated by a single seller”, not “where there is only one seller”. And the graduate text “The Theory of Industrial Organization” by Jean Tirole says that “most of the [monopoly] phenomena here could be derived even in the presence of competitors as long as the firm retained some market power.

    I’d say it’s perfectly legitimate to talk about monopoly even when there are other firms, so long as there is a leader with significant “market power”. Of course, we may disagree on what that means.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p00d83451d3b369e2 tomslee

    See comment above.

  • Ryan Radia

    Again, even under that definition of monopoly, Wu labels far too many firms with the term. Granted, Google and Facebook may well resemble monopolies (in the sense that they have market power in a distinct market), but the same cannot be said about Amazon, Skype, Apple, Twitter, or eBay — unless markets are defined extremely narrowly.

    Apple sells 69% of digital music downloads, but only controls 28% of the U.S. music market. (Does anybody really think that if Apple were to jack up iTunes prices, consumers wouldn’t spend more on substitutes such as CDs?) Similarly, Skype only has 12% market share of international calls, while Amazon only has a 31% share of the U.S. online media market. eBay is old news at this point; its market share and earnings have been eroded heavily by Amazon Affiliate storefronts and Google Checkout. And Twitter has far fewer users than Facebook, which is clearly a direct competitor in the market for “short form individual multicast messages.”

  • Jim Harper

    The stylized version of the word “monopoly” adopted by some economists is fine for them to use in talking among themselves. In the Wall Street Journal, readers will take it to mean “one seller,” just like they take “monorail” to mean “one rail” and “monotheism” as the belief in one god, etc.

    Giving Professor Wu the benefit of the doubt, he may be so lost in academia that he can’t write for a general audience. But the theory that he equivocates on “monopoly” to exaggerate problems in these markets is a pretty good one.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    I haven’t read Tim’s book yet, but I bought a copy from Amazon to read on my iPad through the Kindle app. It strikes me that Wu’s argument for structural separation – apparently recycled from net neutrality along with so many other parts of Master Switch – would make transactions of this kind illegal (so I gather from the reviews.)

    Amazon operates a wireless network (as an MVNO, using other people’s facilities for a fee) and also sells content and its own devices, the Kindles. Apple sells devices, content, and network services as an agent for various network operators. If Wu gets his way, his next book will only be available on-line through The Pirate Bay; this one isn’t there yet.

    From the reviews, it appears that MS is mainly about doubling-down on net neutrality. The predicted harm to innovation and free expression has now been generalized across the entire information economy, but is the same as before, concentration of power. The proposed remedy is also the same: arbitrary firewalls between business activities that try to hide their arbitrariness by wrapping themselves up in 1970s notions of separation of functions in computer networks.

    Given that net neut has been an abject policy failure, and for good reasons, one might ask why it should be given a shot of steroids and released on the information economy as a whole. If the story of AT&T and the answering machine is an example of the justification, I’m not exactly convinced.

    AT&T didn’t control the world-wide market for telephony at any time, and magnetic tape wasn’t an AT&T invention or even an American one, so answering machines could have been deployed in any of the countries where AT&T didn’t control phone service as soon as it was practical regardless of local monopolies in the US.

    Off to read this book on the iPad while it’s still legal.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p00d83451d3b369e2 tomslee

    I’ll give you eBay and Skype. Amazon and Apple are cases I have wondered about. On one hand, here in Canada we have a single big bricks-and-mortar chain (Indigo-Chapters) that has, like big chains in other countries, re-configured the relationship between bookstores and publishers. Like Wal-Mart, a single retail outfit with a large market presence can make itself indispensible, and dictate terms to its suppliers. The publishing trade press in Canada was dominated for years by discussion of Indigo-Chapters and its effect on the industry.

    Brick and mortar retail giants find it difficult to cross borders effectively. Borders had some stores in the UK, but otherwise each nation seems to have its own, let’s not say monopolist, but leading chain. In groceries, even Wal-Mart has failed to dislodge Carrefour in France or Tesco’s in the UK as the leading chain.

    The Internet seems to have broken the effect of borders. Amazon’s international reach makes it different to the previous generation of chains. Not necessarily a monopoly, but for books it is so far ahead of any other online seller that it’s not even funny. Apple in music is showing the same trend – it has a global reach that Tower Records, HMV and others of the previous generation did not have.

    Whether or not “monopoly” is the right word, Amazon and Apple have both become the essential reseller for their sets of publishers, and this gives them a sort of market power that is similar, I think, to monopolies.

  • Pingback: Das Internet ist ein Paradies für Monopole « vasistas?()

  • Pingback: If Net Regulation Is Bad, Why Push for It? « Steve Wildstrom on Tech()

  • Pingback: Success, By Itself, Is Not A Monopoly | NetWatch.TV()

  • Matthijsvanbergen

    Some more thoughts came up in my mind. It is purely natural that in the online markets, there are shortlived monopolies of 80% market shares and above. Every user/consumer wants the very best, and because the online market is, apart from some language and culture barriers (which are quickly fading), in essence a global market, the very best is available to everyone at the same time. And everybody can know who is the best, because they read about it on the internet too. They can compare features, prices, read people’s opinions, etc, etc.

    Kronos has no place in this dynamic, global market, because users have, in the online environment, the ability to very quickly switch collectively to the new best.

    How different this online market is from the ISP market. But ISP’s are not Kronoses eating their offspring (competitors), they are online governments. And should be limited in power accordingly.

  • Matthijsvanbergen

    Oh btw, as a new kid on the block here, if any of the lauded geniuses (no irony meant, just respect) here make minced meat of my arguments, I will just accuse them of doing a Kronos on me:-)

  • Pingback: CORRECTION: On the Definition of Monopoly()

  • BrookeOB1

    The first problem isn’t a problem of a company having too much power, it’s a problem of a government with too much power. If we didn’t have a government that has the power to prop up dying companies–by artificially restricting competition with regulatory barriers, providing price supports, giving bailouts or whatever else–this wouldn’t be an issue. Yes, big companies facing decline will do everything possible to stay in afloat, and given that we’ve granted our grossly bloated federal government power over pretty much all economic exchange, “everything possible” includes lobbying for regulatory protection. These are profit seeking firms with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders: hard to blame them for looking for regulatory advantage when there is regulatory advantage to be given.

  • Pingback: Should We Be Afraid of Apple, Google and Facebook?: Tech News «()

  • Pingback: Lese-Tip fürs Wochenende: Internet und Monopole | Kartellblog.()

  • Pingback: Who’s Afraid of Apple, Google, Facebook? « The Kyle File Blog()

  • Pingback: Should We Be Afraid of Apple, Google and Facebook? | Obsessed By()

Previous post:

Next post: