That is a great question to ask. Sorry for a long answer, I'll try to trim it down and just give a couple of thoughts:

----

> Why would Roblox, fortnite, Twitter, Instagram, etc. be broken up due to anti trust?

First, it's worth noting that at at least for Fortnite/Instagram in this list we should be talking about Epic/Meta. Perverse incentives with the same company owning both a games publishing platform and games that are featured on that platform might potentially be a part of Fortnite's continued success. There's a ton of debate about physical stores putting their own brands inside of general stores -- for the most part we allow this kind of thing, but we should be very careful about the potential downsides and potential conflicts of interest. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least think about antitrust in those situations.

Where Instagram is concerned, the case is a little bit more clear. Threads would not have had the launch it had if it wasn't a Meta property. It didn't have to start from scratch; it launched with Instagram's userbase. And Instagram/Threads aren't really competitors in the most traditional sense, they're two arms of the same company. The question where Instagram is concerned is not whether Instagram itself is too big, it's whether or not having one company that owns Instagram and Facebook and Oculus and Threads and whatever else Facebook is getting its grubby hands into is too much.

Which leads to:

----

> but Instagram would continue in the same way it currently exists

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think that a lot of abusive behaviors online stem from large players shaping what the business models can be, and those business models and attitudes towards moderation and user abuse trickle down into lower players. Instagram is in alignment with Facebook's general views towards privacy, I think the attitudes of Meta as a company really do impact how apps like Instagram are built and run.

In other words, I don't think it's just a coincidence that Instagram's privacy and approach to algorithmic content basically mirrors Facebook. I think it's because they're the same company even if they say they aren't, they're aligned with Meta's goals.

So, let's talk about Roblox then:

----

So Roblox isn't a giant company, and it is hecking exploitative. But, does that mean that antitrust isn't relevant to Roblox? I would argue no. Back in 2021 as part of investigations into antitrust with Apple, the DOJ started a probe into whether or not Apple privileged Roblox by allowing it to circumvent app store rules.

Roblox isn't giant, but it's big enough that other large platforms are willing to privilege it. And the antitrust solution there doesn't have to involve breaking up a company (although... we could talk about Apple too if we do want to break up companies :)). It can also mean recognizing how size can allow other giant companies to excuse abusive behavior in existing businesses while suppressing smaller startups that might otherwise compete.

Would Roblox be as popular if it was held to the same strict standards that every other app was held to? The app can get away with things that other competing apps can't get away with, because Apple has so much control over the mobile market and Apple decides where to enforce its rules.

----

Getting further away from "break them up", there are also a lot of anticompetitive things that companies do before they become giant behemoths. Facebook/Instagram provided great examples of that -- even early on blocking links to competing websites, using their API to deliberately push out potential threats. These are ways that unethical companies build moats around their businesses and block more ethical alternatives.

So maybe not "break them up", but if another platform pops up, Roblox shouldn't by default be able to just buy that company. If Twitter starts blocking links to other social media companies, that's something that should be regarded as anticompetitive and it's something that we could have a regulatory response to, even if we don't think Twitter is a monopoly.

My feeling is that a lot of sites are able to become giant behemoths by doing anticompetitive stuff that antitrust law should be blocking, and very often they get slaps on the wrist and that's it. The consequence of that policy decision is that only the bad actors manage to survive because they're the only companies willing to pull this kind of garbage.

----

One last thing to cycle around to -- touching again on Roblox and Apple, I want to again push at this idea that monopolistic behavior inside of a market shapes the entire market, not just what the dominant players do. We have an ad-driven Internet where personal data is the defacto currency. We are in an attention economy where optimizing for outrage/depression is literally good business. There are almost standardized policies in the market around how user data is treated and about what rights consumers have when using these platforms -- to the point where Threads can launch without a timeline -- with only an algorithmic view.

And it's tempting to look at those businesses and say "okay, that's terrible, but all the tiny businesses would be the same if they went away, that's just the market and it's how the market would always act". But I don't know that that's true. I think that when you have search monopolies and mobile market monopolies and advertising monopolies who are dictating how the Internet should be monetized, that leads to businesses going down a certain route and it leads to certain businesses thriving and other businesses failing, and it leads to the market focusing on developing one revenue model.

Roblox and Fortnite are huge on mobile, including iOS. And the Apple App Store encourages a subscription model with micropurchases. That is the best app monetization strategy for Apple's profits. It's undeniable that Apple has in many ways defined the mobile games market, they practically invented the modern market for mobile games. And it's not just iOS; Android tends to run in the opposite direction but has also had a huge impact on what kinds of games and apps run on your phone -- Android encourages more advertising and user tracking, and with only one store on Android for the majority of users, developers have learned that certain types of apps (ie, apps with ads) do better on Android. In general, if you want non-exploitative games for kids, a phone isn't the best option. But is that just how the market happened to work out, or is it a consequence of having one dominant revenue model for each phone?

So I think that a lot of the companies that people are the most mad about are kind of giant and are involved in straightforwardly anticompetitive behavior, but I also think that their existence influences what the rest of the market looks like, including sub-markets that they almost entirely control. And also that even ignoring the giant companies, many smaller companies still have a lot of power to lock down competitors and to prevent more ethical alternatives from appearing.