The argument seems to be that competition is good and will force facebook to be better. But using the competing service will give Google too much power, so don't do that.

Cognitive dissonance if I ever saw it. How can one mind hold both those arguments at the same time without redefining "competition"?

Interesting take---not at all what I expected from the title. The notion seems to be to preserve competition rather than running from one side of the boat to the other. I'm not sure that 2 makes for sufficient competition, but it certainly beats one.

> I'm not sure that 2 makes for sufficient competition, but it certainly beats one.

This is a very interesting point.

Competition only benefits consumers when there is sufficient choice to subvert collusion. Given the examples of US politics, US car manufacturers and the like, I would surmise that this likely requires more than 3 relatively equal competitive actors to be meaningful.

I have yet to see a post that tells me what sites to use and what sites not to use that actually had a good reason. This one is no different.