Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
insights.som.yale.edu
Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
1–10 of 236 posts
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#2“We can imagine a social network market that worked more like the current phone system: a user of one social network could post and reach friends who were members of different social networks through interoperability protocols.”
How about SMTP?
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#3The actual paper is available for free download here: https://www.omidyar.com/sites/default/files/Roadmap%20for%20...
On a related note, see also this work about Amazon on the Yale Law Journal: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
Meanwhile, Google is already dealing with an antitrust lawsuit from 48 US states: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-antitrust-probe-48-u-s-s...
Regardless of one's view on the merits of all these accusations of anti-competitive behavior, it's clear that the 'political winds,' as it were, are blowing quite a bit more in a direction that goes against these three companies. It wouldn't surprise me if all three end up fighting in courts for the better part of a decade if not longer.
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#4Water is wet, study finds.
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#5“We can imagine a social network market that worked more like the current phone system: a user of one social network could post and reach friends who were members of different social networks through interoperability protocols.” How about SMTP?
I think RSS is a better fit.
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#6[deleted]
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#7The only practice listed in the paper that could be construed as anti-competitive is acquiring other “social networks.” However, it’s a stretch to consider every website that a user can use a competitor to Facebook. It’s not like Facebook acquired a MySpace or anything.
But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Nothing forces the competitor to sell. Acquisitions prove people can compete.
It’s a contradiction to say the network effect protects Facebook but at the same time say they had to buy Instagram because they were successfully competing despite the network effect. Facebook’s network effect didn’t stop Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, etc.
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#8Water is wet, study finds.
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#9The only practice listed in the paper that could be construed as anti-competitive is acquiring other “social networks.” However, it’s a stretch to consider every website that a user can use a competitor to Facebook. It’s not like Facebook acquired a MySpace or anything. But why are acquisitions anti-competitive? Nothing forces the competitor to sell. Acquisitions prove people can compete. It’s a contradiction to say…
>But why are acquisitions anti-competitive?
Because now there's less competition.
Re: Facebook’s dominance is built on anti-competitive behavior
#10Diaspora had the idea of decentralized social networks a while ago by having interoperability between social networks. It never really took off, but I think it would be a good way of limiting 1 social network from getting too powerful.