&gt; But the larger point is that the logic of efficiency on the internet will always favor scale—which is to say, platforms—over publishers.<p>I call bullshit on this one. It&#x27;s unclear what the author means because they use such a meaningless term in &quot;logic of efficiency&quot;, but the last time I looked, it was a lot more financially efficient to set up a website than a print publication. There is nothing at all inevitable about &#x27;the biggest will win&#x27; online, as can be evidenced both by the disappearance of several former behmoths, and by the failure of several pre-Internet companies to &#x27;make it big&#x27; online despite having unlimited capital to invest.<p>Maybe, just maybe, the author is referring directly to advertising revenue here, as in &quot;the more popular sites can make more money from advertising, and thus will grow and grow&quot;. Of course, that&#x27;s totally dismissing the fact that many of the &#x27;platforms&#x27; being discussed simply offer a far better experience, regardless of what content they offer or how big they already are. Here&#x27;s a hint for the author and any other publishers reading: there is far greater variation in the packaging, delivery, and experience of content online than there is offline. Take advantage of that. Don&#x27;t, as we&#x27;ve all been telling you for the last 20 years, just try to replicate your newspaper online: that makes for a horrible experience. Don&#x27;t try to do advertising in the most obnoxious manner you can get away with; that may have worked in print, but it&#x27;s been demonstrated pretty categorically now that it fails online.<p>Or, you know, just carry on regardless, blame platforms for seizing the opportunity that you choose to ignore.