DavidThis is a pretty good takedown of a key element in Facebook/Meta's winning anti-trust argument. Essentially, they argued that because people do other things, including things that could vaguely be described as "using social media,” when they can't use Facebook, Facebook is not a monopoly. This article argues that reality is a bit more complicated than that.
There's also some interesting info on ad loads I wasn't aware of.
Meta’s Winning Market Definition in Its Monopoly Case Relied on a Flawed Empirical Assumption - ProMarket
Meta prevailed in its monopoly case against the Federal Trade Commission by showing that the FTC’s market definition of personal social media was too narrow. However, Meta’s argument—and Judge James Boasberg’s ruling—rested on a flawed empirical assumption that confuses how users divert their time to other activities when no longer able to use a Meta platform with true product substitution.