Is the launch of a kid’s version of Instagram a good idea?

29

September

2021

No ratings yet.

Every parent has to decide from what age they allow their children to create profiles on social media. This often leads to long discussions between parents since there is not a clear guideline to when it would be appropriate to expose their children to social media. 

Especially in a pandemic, children often spend a large part of their day unsupervised on social media. During the that time they are tracked, exposed to toxic content and their mental health might be impacted. Especially the mental health aspect has been topic of recent debate. Looking at Instagram for example, the app is designed to show perfect pictures. This regularly leads to lowering of teen girl’s self-esteem and in bad cases even mental health problems. 

Facebook has now claimed to try to tackle these issues by creating a kid’s version of Instagram. In short, the app would be designed for kids under 13 and incorporate more feedback from parents and policymakers, which according to Facebook would improve the safeguarding of children on Instagram. Facebook claims that creating a digital space where parents are more able to monitor their children behaviour is more effective than banning then from social media altogether.

Even though everyone would agree that safeguarding children more online is a good thing, the idea of a kid’s version of Instagram has received quite some criticism saying it is profit driven instead of a genuine regard for children wellbeing.

Parents and policymakers claim that young children would be more triggered to join a social media platform which are designed to be addictive. Next to that, they fear that their children would be tracked more specifically and even though not all the data can be used now, it will be stored for the future.  

What do you think, is a kid’s Instagram a good idea or is another solution more suitable?

Please rate this

Should platform owners be allowed to vertically integrate?

16

September

2021

No ratings yet.

Within the dynamics of a multi-sided platform there are three groups present, namely the users, complementors and platform owner. The platform owner provides the infrastructure through which complementors can offer their products to the users. Complementors thus compete with each other to sell their products on the platform to the users, and the platform owner captures value for providing the infrastructure.

Complementors however do not only face competition from their peers, but also from their platform owner since they tend to vertically integrated. Meaning that the platform owners produces a product itself and offers it on its own platform, e.g. Apple developing their own app. When a platform owner enters its own platform it affects complementor’s performance significantly, in some cases even resulting in complementors leaving the affected category or platform in its entirety. There are two main reasons why the vertical integration significantly affects complementors.

Firstly, there is an information asymmetry present between the platform owner and the complementors. It is no secret that platform owners harvest a vast amount of data regarding all the activity on the platform. These data are highly relevant for both the platform owner and the complementors, however they are largely only available for the platform owner. For example, Apple know exactly how much time all users spend on which applications.

Secondly, complementor’s products are sometimes made obsolete. Due to the fact that the platform owner often controls the ecosystem the platform it is in, the platform owner is able to only offer their own products. For example, Apple made walkie-talkie apps obsolete by only making their own version available on the apple watch.

Platform owners themselves argue that capturing value which previously belonged to the complementors is not the incentive of their vertical integrations. Amazon explains that by offering some products themselves, they are able to meet the unmet demand in popular categories. Platform owners also claim that the enter crowded categories to steer complementor’s innovation to other categories. Next to that, platform owners are in some cases able to offer better products to the users due to the information asymmetry with the complementors.

Since the true motivation for the market entry of the platform owner cannot be observed, discussions regarding antitrust regulations and ethics are taking place. However, there has not been an unambiguous answer to the question yet if the vertical integration of platform owners is to be considered fair competition.

Please rate this