Refusing to offer patronage to alternative and competitive services, while bemoaning the lack of alternative and competitive services is a baffling position, surely you can see the irony?

I see no irony -- it's no individual's responsibility to ensure that a functioning market exists or to voluntarily use a worse service/product out of some vague sense of duty.

I understand ; one that hold this opinion must believe that every service that he uses is a pure monopoly then

That's only true in a world where everyone has the same preferences. People don't drink Pepsi because they think Coke needs competition, they drink it because they like the taste.

Of course, I meant for example if this consumer thought Coke is a bad monopoly that should be broken that would be a little bit illogical to me, because there's Pepsi and other soda.

Remember the great great parent just said that Opera is not a competitor to Chrome, which is really really an odd statement

Why have some people here such a hard time acknowledging that strong network effects can be one form of market failure? A network effect is a classical prisoners dilemma / tragedy of the commons / whatever it's called for everyone but the few involved making money... youtube and publishers.

The "market" will have a hard time fixing itself. As with other market failures, it will probably only happen because of regulation, or the threat thereof.

It's not. There's no prisoners dilemma and tragedy of the commons have all to do with difficulties in setting property rights, not related to market failure

It’s not duty, it’s voting with your page views.