>1) dominate their respective markets (as monopolies or one of a small number of oligopolistic suppliers),
Check. Most people can't be bothered to maintain a presence on more than two social networks. So Facebook, Twitter (and in a distant third place) Google Plus have a de-facto oligolopoly on users' ad viewing. And given Facebook's enormous userbase, it's not exactly convenient for users to switch away, due to network effects.
>2) are spectacularly unresponsive to customer/user sentiments.
Every change Facebook has made lately has been vociferously opposed by its userbase, usually because it erodes privacy and reduces the perceived level of control that people have over the broadcast of their status updates.
>"We don't care, we don't have to. We're the Phone Company".
Replace "Phone Company" with Facebook and that may as well be a paraphrase of Mark Zuckerberg.
Check. Most people can't be bothered to maintain a presence on more than two social networks. So Facebook, Twitter (and in a distant third place) Google Plus have a de-facto oligolopoly on users' ad viewing. And given Facebook's enormous userbase, it's not exactly convenient for users to switch away, due to network effects.
>2) are spectacularly unresponsive to customer/user sentiments.
Every change Facebook has made lately has been vociferously opposed by its userbase, usually because it erodes privacy and reduces the perceived level of control that people have over the broadcast of their status updates.
>"We don't care, we don't have to. We're the Phone Company".
Replace "Phone Company" with Facebook and that may as well be a paraphrase of Mark Zuckerberg.