Yes because Amazon used unfair practices to crush small competitors like Walmart…

No, I don't think I've seen that being claimed. It has been claimed that they have used their anticompetitive practices against others. Having Walmart as a competitor doesn't mean that they don't have a dominant market position with power to abuse at their disposal.

How do they have the 'power to abuse' with only 37.6% of the e-commerce marketshare?

And probably less than 15% of overall retail marketshare?

What's Walmart's market share of online retail?

Conversely what's Amazon's share of physical detail? (Preferably excluding whole foods since that's an arguably different business to selling cheap electronics and other junk)

It's as if the two companies operate in... different spheres!

Did you mistake my comment with someone else’s?

Their comment is a completely clear and coherent reply to yours, there is no reason to think this is a mistake.

The opinion is noted? I don't know who this is but presumably 'IntelMiner' is a different person with their own views and rationale for writing.

It is clear they didn't make a mistake and meant to reply to you.

Did you even read my reply?

Repeating the previous opinion with slightly different wording seems a bit odd.

Walmart is a smaller competitor to amazon in online retail. You are confused and need to review the comments in this thread.

This still seems oddly disjointed as a response, but sure your free to believe whatever.

Your comments seem to be about other people's comments. I think you have lost track of this thread's topic.

Okay.

That is plenty large enough of a chunk to have significant economic influence. As a reference point, it's about the same percent marketshare OPEC has on the oil market.

Even though the topics are frequently discussed together, anticompetitive behavior is something different than being a monopoly and one does not require the other.